<NOSCRIPT> does not pass w3c validator

[Paul]

Hello:

I read the FAQ about embedding HTML code in a Javascript. I have used the "<\/tag>" format
to get around validator problems. Now the <NOSCRIPT> block is failing with error #65:

1. Line 52, column 9: document type does not allow element "NOSCRIPT" here; missing one
of "APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME", "BUTTON" start-tag

<NOSCRIPT>

The offending URL is at: http://pmcferrin.ugate.net/barkhouse...ovalidate.html

Can someone advise me what I'm doing wrong?

-paul

[Neal]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 04:07:41 GMT, Paul <""p _ e _ m c f e r r i n \"@ y a
h o o . c o m . D E L E T E> wrote:

Hello:

I read the FAQ about embedding HTML code in a Javascript. I have used
the "<\/tag>" format to get around validator problems. Now the
<NOSCRIPT> block is failing with error #65:

1. Line 52, column 9: document type does not allow element
"NOSCRIPT" here; missing one of "APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME",
"BUTTON" start-tag

<NOSCRIPT>

The offending URL is at:
http://pmcferrin.ugate.net/barkhouse...ovalidate.html

Can someone advise me what I'm doing wrong?

-paul

Stop relying on Javascript. Serve HTML.

You don't want to see what your page looks like w/o Javascript. It looks
like you're a moron, frankly.

[Pierre Goiffon]

"Paul" <""p _ e _ m c f e r r i n \"@ y a h o o . c o m . D E L E T E>
a écrit dans le message de
news:hK********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net

I read the FAQ about embedding HTML code in a Javascript. I have
used the "<\/tag>" format to get around validator problems. Now the
<NOSCRIPT> block is failing with error #65:

1. Line 52, column 9: document type does not allow element
"NOSCRIPT" here; missing one of "APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME",
"BUTTON" start-tag

<NOSCRIPT>

The offending URL is at:
http://pmcferrin.ugate.net/barkhouse...ovalidate.html

It seems the validator doesn't like the html in the document.write() - see
the errors below with "end tag for "A" omitted" for exemple.
It think you should rewrite that firstly (maybe the html comments aren't
with the good syntax ?).

Also I don't understand exactly why JavaScript is necessary for you
navigation menu ? Seems like you could do without JS

[jake]

In message <op**************@news.individual.net>, Neal
<ne*****@yahoo.com> writes

On Wed, 26 May 2004 04:07:41 GMT, Paul <""p _ e _ m c f e r r i n \"@ y
a h o o . c o m . D E L E T E> wrote:

Hello:

I read the FAQ about embedding HTML code in a Javascript. I have
used the "<\/tag>" format to get around validator problems. Now the
<NOSCRIPT> block is failing with error #65:

1. Line 52, column 9: document type does not allow element
"NOSCRIPT" here; missing one of "APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME",
"BUTTON" start-tag

<NOSCRIPT>

The offending URL is at:
http://pmcferrin.ugate.net/barkhouse...ovalidate.html

Can someone advise me what I'm doing wrong?

-paul

Stop relying on Javascript. Serve HTML.

You don't want to see what your page looks like w/o Javascript. It
looks like you're a moron, frankly.

A little harsh, don't do think, Neal?

If it's a collection of family photos to be looked at by the family,
does it really matter that he uses JS?

Personally, I'd be more concerned about resizing the 600k+ photo images
down to less than 30k each so that dial-up users don't have to wait for
ever.

regards.
--
Jake

[Neal]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:38:21 +0100, jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In message <op**************@news.individual.net>, Neal
<ne*****@yahoo.com> writes

Stop relying on Javascript. Serve HTML.

You don't want to see what your page looks like w/o Javascript. It
looks like you're a moron, frankly.
A little harsh, don't do think, Neal?

Perhaps. I was tired. But frankly, I stand by that.
If it's a collection of family photos to be looked at by the family,
does it really matter that he uses JS?
Maybe, that's for his family to decide. I don't want to make things
difficult for my family any more than I already do.
Personally, I'd be more concerned about resizing the 600k+ photo images
down to less than 30k each so that dial-up users don't have to wait for
ever.

Well, I certainly agree.

[Andy Dingley]

Paul <""p _ e _ m c f e r r i n \"@ y a h o o . c o m . D E L E T E> wrote in message news:<hK********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

The offending URL is at: http://pmcferrin.ugate.net/barkhouse...ovalidate.html

Can someone advise me what I'm doing wrong?

You're writing HTML when you're clearly a born Perl coder.

Try submitting it as an entry to the Obfuscated Perl contest - you've
got a winner here. This is _the_ shonkiest piece of nasty and
pointless HTML I've seen so far this year. I don't care what it's
meant to be doing, or why it isn't. After reading that source I want
to wash my hands, and probably my eyeballs too.

[PeEmm]

Paul skrev 2004-05-26 06:07:

Hello:

I read the FAQ about embedding HTML code in a Javascript. I have used the "<\/tag>" format
to get around validator problems. Now the <NOSCRIPT> block is failing with error #65:

1. Line 52, column 9: document type does not allow element "NOSCRIPT" here; missing one
of "APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME", "BUTTON" start-tag

<NOSCRIPT>

The offending URL is at: http://pmcferrin.ugate.net/barkhouse...ovalidate.html

Can someone advise me what I'm doing wrong?

-paul

NOSCRIPT is only allowed inside block elements, but you have put it
inside the FONT and B elements, which are inline.
--
/P.M.

[joe]

Some info that may help:

ABOUT <NOSCRIPT>

Contents:

Block-level elements, inline elements

Contained in:

APPLET, BLOCKQUOTE, BODY, BUTTON, CENTER, DD, DEL, DIV, FIELDSET, FORM,
IFRAME, INS, LI, MAP, NOFRAMES, NOSCRIPT, OBJECT, TD, TH

[Harlan Messinger]

"joe" <jo******@verizon.net> wrote:

Some info that may help:

ABOUT <NOSCRIPT>

Contents:

Block-level elements, inline elements

Contained in:

APPLET, BLOCKQUOTE, BODY, BUTTON, CENTER, DD, DEL, DIV, FIELDSET, FORM,
IFRAME, INS, LI, MAP, NOFRAMES, NOSCRIPT, OBJECT, TD, TH

Odd that SCRIPT would be inline and NOSCRIPT would be block. I realize
that if NOSCRIPT were inline, then it wouldn't be able to contain
blocks, which would be a different problem. I wonder if it could have
been left bivalent as INS and DEL are.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

[Paul]

Harlan Messinger wrote:

"joe" <jo******@verizon.net> wrote:

Some info that may help:

ABOUT <NOSCRIPT>

Contents:

Block-level elements, inline elements

Contained in:

APPLET, BLOCKQUOTE, BODY, BUTTON, CENTER, DD, DEL, DIV, FIELDSET, FORM,
IFRAME, INS, LI, MAP, NOFRAMES, NOSCRIPT, OBJECT, TD, TH

Odd that SCRIPT would be inline and NOSCRIPT would be block. I realize
that if NOSCRIPT were inline, then it wouldn't be able to contain
blocks, which would be a different problem. I wonder if it could have
been left bivalent as INS and DEL are.

Thanks for pointing that out. I just assummed that if SCRIPT was inline, then certainly
NOSCRIPT would also be inline.

This is one of just seveal thousand HTML files using the same basic syntax. All files are
residing on a CD (in the end) so there is no option of using a web server. The CD is
basically a family CD ( http://pmcferrin.ugate.net/demo/offer.html ). I find it necessary
to use Javascript because of the need to dynamically resize images to make optimum use of
the user's screen size; regardless of the user's monitor resolution.

The HTML template that I used in writing the HTML generator was written several years ago
before the HTML validator came onto the scene. It's only recently that I wanted to make the
HTML code compliant to help ensure that browsers that come out 20 years later have a chance
to still work with antequated HTML on a CD.

In retrospec, I probably should have avoided making the HTML code function in a
non-javascript environment by making the first page checking to ensure Javascript is enabled
before continuing.

Yhanks,
-paul

PS. I know the HTML code is terrible to read! I was a first-year HTML programmer when the
template was developed. We all start out somewhere while learning.

[PeEmm]

Harlan Messinger skrev 2004-05-27 02:17:

"joe" <jo******@verizon.net> wrote:

Some info that may help:

ABOUT <NOSCRIPT>

Contents:

Block-level elements, inline elements

Contained in:

APPLET, BLOCKQUOTE, BODY, BUTTON, CENTER, DD, DEL, DIV, FIELDSET, FORM,
IFRAME, INS, LI, MAP, NOFRAMES, NOSCRIPT, OBJECT, TD, TH

Odd that SCRIPT would be inline and NOSCRIPT would be block. I realize
that if NOSCRIPT were inline, then it wouldn't be able to contain
blocks, which would be a different problem. I wonder if it could have
been left bivalent as INS and DEL are.

SCRIPT is defined as a *special* (inline) entity along these:

<!ENTITY % special
"A | IMG | OBJECT | BR | SCRIPT | MAP | Q | SUB | SUP | SPAN | BDO">

(NOSCRIPT is block and INS/DEL are both as you pointed out.)

--
/P.M.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:

Odd that SCRIPT would be inline and NOSCRIPT would be block.
The SCRIPT element is for "embedding" a script into HTML, effectively
just feeding script code to a browser's script interpreter. Technically
it has "content" in HTML, but this is just because the designers of HTML
wanted to allow direct embedding of script data.

The NOSCRIPT element on the other hand encloses normal HTML content, and
it is reasonable to allow blocks there, too.

SCRIPT and NOSCRIPT may sound similar, but they really aren't comparable.
They would be comparable if SCRIPT meant that its content is to be
regarded as part of the content if and only if client-side scripting is
enabled in the browser (and different tools would be used for actual
inclusion of script code). Actually that would be nice, since it would
let us make the presence of <input type="button" ...>, for example,
depend on whether scripting is enabled; now we have to write awkward
document.write(...) stuff to generate <input type="button" ...> markup or
create the risk of displaying a button that doesn't do anything.
I realize
that if NOSCRIPT were inline, then it wouldn't be able to contain
blocks, which would be a different problem.
Indeed. Typically any useful NOSCRIPT content is a block or blocks,
though often a short one, like
<noscript>
<p><big>Sorry, this page consists of a color picker that does not work
without client-side scripting (JavaScript). Your current browser has
client-side scripting disabled, or does not support it at all.</big></p>
<p>There is <a href="table.html">table of colors</a> available for those
who cannot use client-side scripting.</p>
</noscript>
I wonder if it could have
been left bivalent as INS and DEL are.

INS and DEL are oddities and break the whole idea of inline vs block -
which, on the other hand, isn't really such a great idea (though it has
some benefits).

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Voetleuce]

In article <Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31>,
jk******@cs.tut.fi says...

...

There's a little Yucca picture in the top right hand corner of Yukka's
post in my Gravity preview pane. Is this an easter egg or has Yukka
started posting binaries?

[Dave Patton]

Voetleuce <le***@leu.ce> wrote in
news:MP************************@news.absamail.co.z a:

In article <Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31>,
jk******@cs.tut.fi says...

...

There's a little Yucca picture in the top right hand corner of Yukka's
post in my Gravity preview pane. Is this an easter egg or has Yukka
started posting binaries?

Neither. He's using a X-Face header:
http://www.dairiki.org/xface/

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/