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

Re: XTHML 1.0 Strict validation of noscript

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:10:08 +0300 (EEST)
To: Rui del-Negro <rmn@dvd-hq.info>
cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610160903440.26368@mustatilhi.cs.tut.fi>

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Rui del-Negro wrote:

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

As described in prose at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_scriptmodule
XHTML 1.1 makes <noscript> an element that may appear both at block level 
and at inline level, so in that sense it solves your validation problem.
XHTML 1.1 is, however, an exercise in futility, and you could as well use 
a DTD modified from the XHTML 1.0 DTD by a relaxation of <noscript> rules. 
This would let you see that you _otherwise_ follow XHTML 1.0 rules and not 
the XHTM 1.1 rules (some of which mean that pages cannot work on real-life 
browsers, e.g. as regards to image maps).

> 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).

Well, I _still_ think that the ultimate problem remains - you are using 
document.write, since if you weren't, the problem probably wouldn't arise.

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 06:10:26 GMT

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