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

Re: XTHML 1.0 Strict validation of noscript

From: Rui del-Negro <w3validator@dvd-hq.info>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:09:16 +0100
To: "Jon Ribbens" <jon+www-validator@unequivocal.co.uk>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.thhphqwkjf0k3w@bigbang>

>> 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.

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.

Anyway, it seems that in 1.1 there's no problem with putting <noscript>  
elements inside paragraphs (unless the validator isn't working properly),  
so this isn't really a problem.

RMN
~~~
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 18:55:46 GMT

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