12401 2011-03-30 14:51:58 +0000 "The noscript element must not be used in XML documents." "[...] it has no effect in the XHTML syntax." Why is this? Is this to intentionally confuse or restrict web developers into using a particular habit? There is no fathomable functionally practical r 2011-08-04 05:36:29 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-noscript-element P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian ayg bzbarsky ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 47051 0 contributor 2011-03-30 14:51:58 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/scripting-1.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-noscript-element Comment: "The noscript element must not be used in XML documents." "[...] it has no effect in the XHTML syntax." Why is this? Is this to intentionally confuse or restrict web developers into using a particular habit? There is no fathomable functionally practical reasoning behind this decisison. There isn't even an issue of syntactical stability here. This is, frankly, a very stupid decision. Posted from: 199.36.15.4 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16 47052 1 bzbarsky 2011-03-30 14:58:21 +0000 It doesn't affect the syntax because XML parsers have no provision for randomly ignoring tags completely inside some element, which is what <noscript> does in HTML syntax. So it's not a "decision" so much as a description of a fundamental limitation of XML parsing. 47089 2 ayg 2011-04-01 15:51:59 +0000 You could still say that UAs with scripting enabled should set noscript { display: none } or equivalent. Then it would be like <video> fallback, basically. The resulting DOM would be different from text/html, and in some cases it would cause issues, but there's no reason it can't work for common things like <noscript><p>This is a JavaScript game, so it will not work in browsers without scripting support.</noscript> 49454 3 ian 2011-06-10 22:28:15 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: People do things like this: <noscript> ... <input name=x> ... </noscript> ...and display:none isn't going to stop that from being submitted. Or, similarly: <noscript> <meta name=refresh content='...'> </noscript> There are plenty of better ways of doing this (like having script delete the contents you don't want when scripts are enabled). 54143 4 mike 2011-08-04 05:36:29 +0000 mass-move component to LC1