Marquee and validation

[Big Bill]

Was there *ever* an html spec that marquee was valid in? Like, 1, or 3
Transitional, or whatever? I have a site I'm trying to validate and
I'm a bit stuck on how to do it. Feel free to point me at urls in that
cheery way you have over here.

BB

 

[Lauri Raittila]

Was there *ever* an html spec that marquee was valid in?
No.

I have a site I'm trying to validate []

If you actually have some good reason to have marquee, then you can make
custom DTD to validate. Lots about validation:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html

 

[rf]

Was there *ever* an html spec that marquee was valid in? Like, 1, or 3
Transitional,

No.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Was there *ever* an html spec that marquee was valid in? Like, 1, or 3
Transitional, or whatever? I have a site I'm trying to validate and
I'm a bit stuck on how to do it.

Mislead the validator by using javascript document.write() to write the
coding for the marquee

 

[Big Bill]

Was there *ever* an html spec that marquee was valid in?
No.

I have a site I'm trying to validate []

If you actually have some good reason to have marquee, then you can make
custom DTD to validate. Lots about validation:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html

I bookmarked that, ta.

BB

 

[Big Bill]

Mislead the validator by using javascript document.write() to write the
coding for the marquee

It's a bleeding big marquee

www.marshallharber.com

Like a lot of tyhis stuff it looks dead pretty but it's a nightmare to
get the engines liking it. I'm going to have each word going to a
relevant page. Probably.

BB

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Mislead the validator by using javascript document.write() to write the
coding for the marquee

Why? If your goal in validating is to create a more accessible Web site,
you're doing the opposite of that by making part of your site dependent
on Javascript support.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Why? If your goal in validating is to create a more accessible Web
site, you're doing the opposite of that by making part of your site
dependent on Javascript support.

Well, I suppose it's a compromise
1. It gives you the satisfaction of 'Congratulations! Valid HTML!' in a
validator
2. Who cares about disappearance of the bloody marquee when js is disabled

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

2. Who cares about disappearance of the bloody marquee when js is disabled

Yeah, but the text inside the marquee will be gone too.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Yeah, but the text inside the marquee will be gone too.

<script type="text/javascript">
document.write('<marquee>');
</script>

Content

<script type="text/javascript">
document.write('</marquee>');
</script>

Still a stupid idea but preserves the content.

Could be done more elegantly through the DOM.

Steve

 

[Karl Core]

Yeah, but the text inside the marquee will be gone too.

Nobody reads maqueed text anyway. They're more blind to that than banner
ads.

 

[Big Bill]

Nobody reads maqueed text anyway. They're more blind to that than banner
ads.

They read this one.

BB

 

[boclair]

They read this one.

<noscript></noscript>

Louise

 

[Karl Core]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:31:58 -0500, "Karl Core"


They read this one.

Of course. Everyone always has an excuse about why their situation is
unique.

 

[Tonnie]

Of course. Everyone always has an excuse about why their situation is
unique.

If he would put up a maqueed text like 'sex sells', i'm certain you
would notice.