W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Tidy's handling of <noscript>

From: Fred Bone <Fred.Bone@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:43:29 +0100
To: html-tidy@w3.org
Message-ID: <3B814C41.13146.5E0C02@localhost>
On 20 Aug 2001, at 9:44, Valen wrote: 

> Hi All,
> Thanks for the several replies.
> It is not my intent to disparage Tidy; it is truly a swell piece
> of work.  I am simply inquiring about a particular behavior.  I
> guess I had in mind an alternate approach.  It's appropriate that
> <noscript> or any other element that ought not occur in <head> be
> placed in <body>. But why should the head-licit <script> tag
> suffer the same fate? To put it differently, why not process all
> <head> tags, moving to <body> those that are illicit while leaving
> in place those that are licit? 

Because Tidy isn't *moving* items at all. It finds a tag that (by the 
rules of HTML) implies the end of <head> and the start of <body>, and 
inserts the omitted tags. 
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 12:43:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:50 UTC