- From: Klaus Johannes Rusch <KlausRusch@atmedia.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 19:06:30 CET
- To: <html-tidy@w3.org>
In <200108201344.JAA14659@nic.com>, Valen <valen@nic.com> writes: > 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? The <noscript> tag following a <head> tag is not _illegal_ in HTML, the <noscript> tag in <head> context is. Since the DTD allows <noscript> in the context of <body> but not <head>, tidy rightly assumes that the <head> section has ended (with an implied </head>) and the <body> section has started (with an implied <body> tag), so all following elements are interpreted in the context of <body>. If all input documents were wellformed and no tags were implied, then tidy could move elements to another section, with the HTML DTD not requiring wellformedness and allowing for implied tags, there is no way tidy can "guess" the right context. -- Klaus Johannes Rusch KlausRusch@atmedia.net http://www.atmedia.net/KlausRusch/
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 18:14:34 UTC