- From: Fred Bone <Fred.Bone@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:43:29 +0100
- To: html-tidy@w3.org
On 20 Aug 2001, at 9:44, Valen wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks for the several replies. > > It is not my intent to disparage Tidy; it is truly a swell piece > of work. I am simply inquiring about a particular behavior. I > guess I had in mind an alternate approach. It's appropriate that > <noscript> or any other element that ought not occur in <head> be > placed in <body>. But why should the head-licit <script> tag > suffer the same fate? To put it differently, why not process all > <head> tags, moving to <body> those that are illicit while leaving > in place those that are licit? Because Tidy isn't *moving* items at all. It finds a tag that (by the rules of HTML) implies the end of <head> and the start of <body>, and inserts the omitted tags.
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 12:43:49 UTC