- From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:58:13 +0200
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:31:00 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:25:07 +0200, Simon Pieters <zcorpan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Make <noscript> allowed in XHTML5, and generally remove differences
>> between HTML5 and XHTML5 where possible.
>
> The use case it has in HTML5 is that you can include <img src=tracker>
> or something in there so you have some fallback tracking mechanism.
> There is no such possibility in XML. It doesn't do any harm either, I
> suppose, but I wonder what the use case is.
?ke J?rvklo said in
<http://forums.whatwg.org/viewtopic.php?t=38&start=15#193>:
Yeah - and I would like to still be able to use something like
<noscript>Note: Scripting is disabled in your browser, please refer
to our <a href="...">accessibility policy</a> for the implications of
this</noscript>
regardless if I work in XHTML5 or HTML5 for the moment.
>> This could thus also imply:
>>
>> * Don't disallow lang="" in XHTML5
>> * Don't disallow <base href> in XHTML5.
>
> I agree with these. xml:lang should be treated the same as xml:id imo
> (except that for now I suppose they have different handling if both the
> xml: and normal attribute specified).
Agreed.
>> * Don't disallow <meta charset> in XHTML5 (it doesn't do any good,
>> but doesn't harm either).
>
> If it doesn't have any effect wouldn't that be confusing?
Possibly.
--
Simon Pieters
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 02:58:13 UTC