- 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