- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:51:59 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12401
Summary: "The noscript element must not be used in XML
documents." "[...] it has no effect in the XHTML
syntax." Why is this? Is this to intentionally confuse
or restrict web developers into using a particular
habit? There is no fathomable functionally practical r
Product: HTML WG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the
-noscript-element
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson)
AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch
ReportedBy: contributor@whatwg.org
QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,
public-html@w3.org
Specification:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/scripting-1.html
Section:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-noscript-element
Comment:
"The noscript element must not be used in XML documents." "[...] it has no
effect in the XHTML syntax." Why is this? Is this to intentionally confuse or
restrict web developers into using a particular habit? There is no fathomable
functionally practical reasoning behind this decisison. There isn't even an
issue of syntactical stability here. This is, frankly, a very stupid decision.
Posted from: 199.36.15.4
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16)
Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 14:52:01 UTC