bspittles@googlemail.com wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mr Lahn,[/color]
Since you appear to be fairly new to Usenet, you should know that it is
customary to call each other with the first name on Usenet, except as a
note of recognized misbehavior of the other person.
And Usenet being a one-to-many medium, unlike private e-mail, it is also
customary to omit direct addressing (with known exceptions), and use an
attribution line instead to indicate whose text you are referring to.
[color=blue]
> Thank you very much for taking the trouble to reply in such detail.[/color]
You are welcome.
[color=blue]
> [...] You've highlighted the open and closing of
> some of the tags in my generated email, with the comment:
>
> "Neither the generating nor the generated markup is Valid[1]"[/color]
It would have been better (because easier for you to refer, and easier
for other people to understand the reference) if you simply quoted what
you are replying to _in context_:
<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/pots1.html>
<URL:http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
[color=blue]
> I can't find anythng wrong with my generated code, and running it
> through the checker at
http://validator.w3.org/ didn't highlight any
> problems[/color]
For example, you have not escaped the ETAGO delimiters "</" within the
`script' element, preferably with "<\/". A conforming markup parser, such
as the W3C Validator, will recognize the unescaped ETAGO as the end of the
`script' element CDATA content and regard the rest as not Valid. The W3C
Validator does show this as an error in the markup. (Maybe you have
thought you had fixed the problem by commenting out the script; however,
that is only the path back to the Dark Side; search the archives.)
[color=blue]
> (some others, but not with the tags).[/color]
You should understand that SGML-based markup consists of elements, not
tags. Elements are represented by start tag and corresponding end tag,
and content, where each of start tag, end tag, and content can be optional.
I /know/ that the W3C Validator did show problems with your markup other
than within the script data; for example, the missing `type' attribute
of the `script' element. Otherwise you would have posted something that
you did not actually use, which is a bad idea anyway.
[color=blue]
> Could you explain further what you think is wrong?[/color]
The Validator by itself cannot work on content that is generated
client-side, such as with document.write(). I /know/ that your
generated code is missing a DOCTYPE declaration, for example.
Therefore, you should copy the now-generated code into an empty text file
and validate that text file using the upload form of the Validator. Then
replace the current string argument of document.open() with the then-Valid
source code (removing newlines or, even better, use string concatenation or
joining of arrays to make it easier legible), and don't forget to escape
the ETAGOs again.
HTH
PointedEars
