- From: Jon Ribbens <jon+www-validator@unequivocal.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:31:28 +0100
- To: www-validator@w3.org
Rui del-Negro <rmn@dvd-hq.info> wrote: > >>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. Presumably because a <script> may well not be inserting any content, and even if it is, not necessarily at the point in the document where the <script> appears, so it's appropriate almost anywhere. <noscript> by contrast must pretty much always be inserting content - which might include block tags - and therefore is only appropriate where that content would make sense.
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 00:31:44 UTC