[whatwg] <noscript> should be allowed in <head>
hsivonen at iki.fi
Wed May 30 05:25:21 PDT 2007
On May 30, 2007, at 15:02, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Philip Taylor wrote:
>> Perhaps it would be better to rephrase as: Will there be a
>> class for HTML5 consumers that process conforming documents according
>> the spec, but process non-conforming documents in an undefined way?
> Yep, that's what I had in mind.
I think it could be useful to allow markup editors to coerce non-
conforming documents into conforming in an implementation-defined way
because then the editor could limit UI representations to conforming
>> (I'm not sure whether it's that useful to be able to claim
>> for its own sake. Interoperability is useful, but maybe that can be
>> achieved by imagining a new spec which just says "If a document is
>> conforming according to the definition in HTML5, then it must be
>> processed as described in HTML5, otherwise the document should be
>> rejected but anything may happen" and all the tools can follow that,
>> so there's no need for HTML5 itself to explicitly allow that.)
>>> > (Keep
>>> > in mind that these consumers may not even have a DOM or a
>> defines UA conformance when there's no scripting, which seems to
>> those cases.
> Thinking of which, they may not even want to build a tree of the
> document. So how does the HTML5 parsing model help consumers that
> just want to consume a stream of tokens similarly to a Sax parser?
The parsing spec allows a Draconian response to parse errors. Hence,
if you want SAX events, you have two conforming options:
1) Build a tree in its entirety first and then emit the events
based on the tree.
2) Emit events as the parse progresses and halt on errors that
require non-streamable recovery.
My plan is to implement both (in Java).
hsivonen at iki.fi
More information about the whatwg