[whatwg] <noscript> should be allowed in <head>

Wed May 30 04:30:54 PDT 2007

On 30/05/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 2:02 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > So let's rephrase this question: will there be a conformance class
> > for HTML5 consumers that *only* accept conforming documents? (Keep
> > in mind that these consumers may not even have a DOM or a
> > Javascript engine).
>
> Do you mean: (A) only documents that meet all document conformance
> criteria (B) only documents that meet all *machine-checkable*
> conformance criteria or (C) documents that would not trigger any
> parse errors if the parsing algorithm were applied?

Perhaps it would be better to rephrase as: Will there be a conformance
class for HTML5 consumers that process conforming documents according
the spec, but process non-conforming documents in an undefined way?
(Some non-conforming documents might still be processed according to
the spec, instead of being rejected, so it doesn't "*only* accept
conforming documents". That makes it not be impossible, when using the
full definition of conformance.)

At least that's how I interpret the original intent - it means tools
in systems with guaranteed document conformance (i.e. not taking input
from the general web) could be simplified while still claiming to be
conformant and still being interoperable with other such tools. They
would only have to be compatible with the rules for processing
conforming documents, instead of being compatible with the rules
defined by browsers for non-conforming documents. (Is that
interpretation correct, or am I totally missing the point?)

(I'm not sure whether it's that useful to be able to claim conformance
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
> > Javascript engine).

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work#non-scripted already
defines UA conformance when there's no scripting, which seems to cover
those cases.

-- 
Philip Taylor
excors at gmail.com