- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:46:54 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Rui del-Negro <rmn@dvd-hq.info>
- cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Rui del-Negro wrote: >> jkorpela@cs.tut.fi wrote: >> >> It is advisable to drop the "<!--" stuff, which is nothing >> but useless technobabble copied from old documents and no >> books. [...] Far from protecting anything, the technobabble >> creates a pointless risk. > > Well, they use it at w3schools: One more reason to be skeptical about that site, which looks (perhaps intentionally) a bit like as if it were affiliated with the W3C but isn't. >> The real reason is that you have <noscript> inside a <p> element. >> That's not allowed. > > But a <script> is? Yes. > Considering that in 99% of cases a <noscript> will be used to provide an > alternative to the output of a <script>, why allow one and not the other? Beats me. But that's _not_ a validator issue. >> The INS and DEL elements >> must not contain block-level content > > And in this case it doesn't. Actually, it would have to. > The contents of the <noscript> block in this > case is all inline (text and / or an image). But I agree about the > semantics. Or do you mean <noscript> is block? Bingo. That's what the DTD says. > Wouldn't it be simpler for validators to simply ignore the <noscript> tags No. A validator would not be a validator if it did not check syntactic correctness by SGML or XML rules using whatever DTD the document specifies. A validator as such does not know anything about the meaning or intended use of any tag. It's job is _purely_ syntactic. > as a general rule I don't like to use JavaScript to modify element > contents, So how _do_ you use JavaScript to insert the user name? The only other way I can imagine is document.write, which is _not_ allowed when using XHTML. (See http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#docwrite ) -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Sunday, 15 October 2006 21:47:21 UTC