- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:06:22 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> So, given that it already states the conforming content model is the
> same as that of its parent element, I don't see how that is an
> additional restriction at all.
Consider:
<aside>
<noscript>
<em>Text</em>
</noscript>
<noscript>
<p>Text</p>
</noscript>
</aside>
The content model for <aside> is "Zero or more block-level elements, or
inline-level content (but not both)". If the only criteria for
conformaance of <noscript> content is that it have the same content model
as its parent, the above snippet would be allowed. However, since this:
<aside>
<em>Text</em>
<p>Text</p>
</aside>
...would be non-conformant (it mixes inline and block-level content), we
don't want the <noscript> version to be conformant.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 26 November 2006 00:06:22 UTC