- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:59:15 +0200
On 27.08.2010 12:32, Hugh Guiney wrote: > Ah, thanks. I guess the error is just confusing then in that it calls > it "XHTML element noscript", which led me to think that it was indeed > part of XHTML. I think some indication otherwise might prove > beneficial to users. > > But, I thought XHTML5 was just an XML serialization of HTML5, so why > is this the case? I just read the rationale behind it, but despite not > being best practice shouldn't it be at the very least allowed? > ... The HTML WG is currently discussing whether it should be deprecated (in HTML), see <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068>. If the outcome of this is that there are good use cases for <noscript>, I'd expect that it will also be allowed in XHTML. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 06:59:15 UTC