[whatwg] <noscript> should be allowed in <head>

On May 30, 2007, at 2:02 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> On May 30, 2007, at 11:39, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>> Whether or not it should be conforming is a different question.  
>>>> How a document is to be parsed is best agreed upon between  
>>>> browser vendors I think. We already have enough differences as  
>>>> it is.
>>>
>>> Again, you're making the assumption that any consumer of HTML  
>>> content is a browser.
>> No, the assumption isn't that any consumer is a browser. The  
>> assumption is that browsers need to do what they do based on  
>> browser-specific constraints and the other consumers need to  
>> follow what browsers do in order to be compatible.
>
> ...to be compatible with what? The browsers?
>
> So let's rephrase this question: will there be a conformance class  
> for HTML5 consumers that *only* accept conforming documents? (Keep  
> in mind that these consumers may not even have a DOM or a  
> Javascript engine).

Do you mean: (A) only documents that meet all document conformance  
criteria (B) only documents that meet all *machine-checkable*  
conformance criteria or (C) documents that would not trigger any  
parse errors if the parsing algorithm were applied?

The HTML5 spec as currently written already allows implementations to  
accept only documents in category C, but I don't think there is  
allowance for restricting category (B), and checking for (A) by  
definition does not make sense.

Conformance errors in general can be quite hard to detect since they  
may depend on details of attribute value microsyntax and on  
relationships between elements in different parts of the document, so  
category (B) is likely not what you want in any case.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 02:18:40 UTC