W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: <noscript> interfere with screen readers?

From: yuu Morita <VET06031@nifty.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:33:50 +0900
Message-ID: <032d01c0eb47$21ec8d10$1b16a8c0@barchitects.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> > Or, if it becomes a HTML document, SELECTED attribute need be omitted. In short, it is specified SELECTED instead of
> > SELECTED=SELECTED.
>
> SELECTED=SELECTED is perfectly valid HTML even if there may be some
> broken browsers that don't accept it. Putting just SELECTED doesn't
>  omit the attribute, it is simply a shorthand for the full form.

What you say is right. My poorly English was the cause about this point.
However, is it good if even a grammar is valid?
If it was HTML document, it's better to write it as SELECTED, not SELECTED=SELECTED.


> Unfortunately these are true.  Assuming that you have a DOCTYPE and
> a title element, the only validation error is the NOSCRIPT in a %inline
> context.


To be sure, HTML tags and HEAD tags are omissible. However, BODY element and tags are not omissible. Therefore, that sample takes
out a part from some document. DOCTYPE and TITLE element should be written to the document source.
Generally -- if DOCTYPE is lost, it cannot be said that it's not valid or invalid, either.
I assumed that they were HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0.


> If you want a neutral block element, you should use DIV, not P.


Why?

Let me suppose a natural language before he does that sample to be markup...

I could suppose as below:

Do foo
Do bar
...

IMO, the text are markup as below:

<p>Do foo</p>
<p>Do bar</p>
<p>...</p>

Or,

<ul>
<li>Do foo</li>
<li>Do bar</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>

However, that example uses SELECT element.
By using SELECT element, one of the choice which has more than one is taken out, and it becomes to a sentence. Therefore, P element
is more appropriate.

In short, <p><select>...</select></p>

Point out if I misunderstand some.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: <noscript> interfere with screen readers?


> >
> > It may separate from main subject, but above all that markup is invalid:
> >
> > FORM element can't have inline elements just under itself.
> > SELECT element must be markup in block element.
>
> These are not true for HTML 4 transitional.
>
> > LABEL element can't have block element just under itself.
> > NOSCRIPT element is a block element, and NOSCRIPT element have block element just under itself.
> >
>
> Unfortunately these are true.  Assuming that you have a DOCTYPE and
> a title element, the only validation error is the NOSCRIPT in a %inline
> context.
>
> > If that is an XHTML document, INPUT element is an empty element. The start tag must end with " />".
>
> There is no evidence that XHTML was intended.
>
> > Or, if it becomes a HTML document, SELECTED attribute need be omitted. In short, it is specified SELECTED instead of
> > SELECTED=SELECTED.
>
> SELECTED=SELECTED is perfectly valid HTML even if there may be some
> broken browsers that don't accept it.  Putting just SELECTED doesn't
> omit the attribute, it is simply a shorthand for the full form.
>
> If you want a neutral block element, you should use DIV, not P.
>
>
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 05:34:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:55 GMT