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 04:32:06 +0100
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20061016033206.GB22339@snowy.squish.net>

Rui del-Negro <w3validator@dvd-hq.info> wrote:
> >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.
> Yes, but it might also _not_ include block tags, :) and therefore the  
> current limit ends up forcing some repetition. As long as the _contents_  
> of the <noscript> block was valid for its context, the <noscript> itself  
> sould also be legal. In other words, if you tried to insert block elements  
> using a <noscript> inside a container where they aren't allowed, you'd get  
> the error at that (block) element.

Yes, but I don't think you can express that restriction in a DTD.
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 03:32:58 UTC

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