W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > February 2005

Re: noscript validation issue

From: <paul@webotech.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:38:58 +0000
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050205103858.6F9975C034@ws5.spacesurfer.com>

Dammit you are right! I really should spend less time concentrating on the 
back end of my apps and put some thought into the front end. 

Anyhow, it looks like I will have go off and eradicate <NOSCRIPT> form my 
HTML templates. Again thanks for the invaluable tip! 


David Dorward writes: 

> On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 09:49:17AM +0000, Paul Mackinlay wrote:
>> Having looked into this, a practival alternative to wrapping <noscript> 
>> tags within <p> tags is using <div> instead of <p>.
> Generally speaking, <noscript> is a poor solution to any problem,
> especially when it means throwning away semantics in order to
> validate. 
> The big problem with noscript is that is only allows for two possible
> states - scripting supported or scripting not supported. It doesn't
> allow for the possibility that scripting is supported by the script
> makes use of scripting features not available in all browsers. 
> Generally the better solution is to write the document as if scripting
> was not available, and then use scripting to alter the existing HTML. 
> In cases where you really want to use <noscript>, the better solution
> is probably to write out the entire paragraph using JavaScript, and
> then have another entire paragraph inside the <noscript> block.
>> For those of you that make substantial use of CSS, you can create a CSS 
>> class with the dot notation and use it in the class attribute on the 
>> <div> tag.
> Technically speaking it is an HTML class with a CSS "class selector",
> but <div class="paragraph"> makes for a very poor substitute for <p>. 
> -- 
> David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk 
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2005 10:38:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:44 UTC