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

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  
>> conformance
>> 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  
cases.

>> (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.
>
> 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).

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/