>>> 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 DTD. By the way, I've noticed that in XHTML 1.1 <noscript> seems to have been "promoted": http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-script-1.mod 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). RMN ~~~Received on Sunday, 15 October 2006 22:46:14 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:22 GMT