- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:47:57 +1100
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> Why can't it just be defined that noframes and noscript content gets >> parsed exactly as regular markup > > Because there are a _lot_ of side-effects of parsing as regular markup. > > e.g. > > <noframes> > <style>...</style> > <i> Foo > </noframes> > Bar > > ...the "Bar" musn't be in italics, the <style> block musn't be used, etc. > There's really a LOT of things to catch. In a frameset document, where all the content is displayed within frames using external documents, when would "Bar" ever be displayed anyway (unless the UA doesn't support frames and was rendering the noframes content). In which case, why does it matter whether or not "Bar" ends up within the I element or not? It should be treated exactly the same way as this would be for a non-frameset document: <body> <i>Foo </body> Bar Besides, if that was a real problem, could it not be defined as a special case so that upon encountering </noframes>, all unclosed child elements are then closed and not reopened? I'm not sure what the style element in your example is supposed to show, but I'm sure it could be ignored just like scripts, although it would have no effect on the documents within the frames anyway. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 15:47:57 UTC