- From: Rui del-Negro <rmn@dvd-hq.info>
- Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:46:07 +0100
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
>>> 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. Yes, as I mentioned in the previous message, I understood that, I was just wondering if you knew the reasons behind the different treatment in the DTD. By the way, I've noticed that in XHTML 1.1 <noscript> seems to have been "promoted": http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-script-1.mod I tried simply changing the doctype of these pages to 1.1 and the validator doesn't complain about the <noscript> being there (and everything else validates, and the page looks fine). RMN ~~~
Received on Sunday, 15 October 2006 22:46:14 UTC