- From: Jon Ribbens <jon+www-validator@unequivocal.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:32:06 +0100
- To: www-validator@w3.org
Rui del-Negro <w3validator@dvd-hq.info> wrote: > >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. > > Yes, but it might also _not_ include block tags, :) and therefore the > current limit ends up forcing some repetition. As long as the _contents_ > of the <noscript> block was valid for its context, the <noscript> itself > sould also be legal. In other words, if you tried to insert block elements > using a <noscript> inside a container where they aren't allowed, you'd get > the error at that (block) element. Yes, but I don't think you can express that restriction in a DTD.
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 03:32:58 UTC