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

Re: XTHML 1.0 Strict validation of noscript

From: Jon Ribbens <jon+www-validator@unequivocal.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:31:28 +0100
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20061016003128.GA22339@snowy.squish.net>

Rui del-Negro <rmn@dvd-hq.info> wrote:
> >>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.

Presumably because a <script> may well not be inserting any content,
and even if it is, not necessarily at the point in the document where
the <script> appears, so it's appropriate almost anywhere. <noscript>
by contrast must pretty much always be inserting content - which might
include block tags - and therefore is only appropriate where that
content would make sense.
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 00:31:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:23 GMT