W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 2006

Re: XTHML 1.0 Strict validation of noscript

From: Rui del-Negro <rmn@dvd-hq.info>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:46:07 +0100
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.thhiu5p2ztikme@bigbang>

>>> The real reason is that you have <noscript> inside a <p> element.
>>> That's not allowed.
>> But a <script> is?
> Yes.
>> Considering that in 99% of cases a <noscript> will be used to provide an
>> alternative to the output of a <script>, why allow one and not the  
>> other?
> Beats me. But that's _not_ a validator issue.

Yes, as I mentioned in the previous message, I understood that, I was just  
wondering if you knew the reasons behind the different treatment in the  

By the way, I've noticed that in XHTML 1.1 <noscript> seems to have been  


I tried simply changing the doctype of these pages to 1.1 and the  
validator doesn't complain about the <noscript> being there (and  
everything else validates, and the page looks fine).

Received on Sunday, 15 October 2006 22:46:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:50 UTC