W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2004

Re: validation of

From: Simon Anderson <simon@slop.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:35:51 +0200
Message-ID: <40F86657.7050908@slop.de>
To: www-validator@w3.org

You are absolutely right, of course. <noscript> is a block element. So 
why is it?  Noscript should be able to replace <script> anywhere.
I'm advertising a regular date on the first Friday of every month. 
Because it's a regular date, I can work out what the first Friday of 
next month is and use document.write to add the date to the document. I 
also want to link to a file that describes the date in greater detail. 
That's why the date is inside the link. However, not everybody has 
Javascript, so instead of saying, "Next show: 6th August" with the date 
written by a script, I want to add a noscript element so that 
non-scripting browsers say, "Next show: the first Friday of next month", 
which would also be a link to the detailed page.

I don't understand why the specs should limit <noscript> to being a 
block element if <script> itself is allowed to be inline. I think that 
makes it harder to make accessible documents. Note that existing 
browsers have no trouble at all with <noscript> being inline (all the 
ones I've tested show my alternative text as I want them to when 
Javascript is turned off or unavailable and handle the link 
accordingly). I realise now that I made a mistake in understanding the 
spec, but now I see that, in this respect, the spec is daft anyway.
Received on Friday, 16 July 2004 19:36:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:14 GMT