- From: Simon Anderson <simon@slop.de>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:35:51 +0200
- To: www-validator@w3.org
You are absolutely right, of course. <noscript> is a block element. So why is it? Noscript should be able to replace <script> anywhere. I'm advertising a regular date on the first Friday of every month. Because it's a regular date, I can work out what the first Friday of next month is and use document.write to add the date to the document. I also want to link to a file that describes the date in greater detail. That's why the date is inside the link. However, not everybody has Javascript, so instead of saying, "Next show: 6th August" with the date written by a script, I want to add a noscript element so that non-scripting browsers say, "Next show: the first Friday of next month", which would also be a link to the detailed page. I don't understand why the specs should limit <noscript> to being a block element if <script> itself is allowed to be inline. I think that makes it harder to make accessible documents. Note that existing browsers have no trouble at all with <noscript> being inline (all the ones I've tested show my alternative text as I want them to when Javascript is turned off or unavailable and handle the link accordingly). I realise now that I made a mistake in understanding the spec, but now I see that, in this respect, the spec is daft anyway.
Received on Friday, 16 July 2004 19:36:07 UTC