Re: Page does not validate

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 22, 2012.

  1. 2012-02-22 0:11, Alfred Molon wrote:

    > (the site search is at http://www.molon.de/suche/ )
    >
    > The first error comes from the Google javascript:
    >
    > Line 31, Column 38: there is no attribute "ASYNC"


    It's not in HTML 4.01, which the page purports to comply with. It's
    proposed in HTML5 and has support in most browsers except IE, see
    http://caniuse.com/#cats=HTML5
    Lack of support is just an efficiency issue, so the attribute is safe to
    use _if_ the external script has been designed to be suitable for
    asynchronous treatment. We may have just take Google's word on it.

    So just leave it there. (Switching to the HTML5 doctype is hardly
    useful; you'd get about 144 "error messages", mostly about presentation
    markup that is very well supported by browsers but frowned upon by the
    HTML5 working group.)

    > And I guess there is nothing I can do here.


    There's nothing you need to do with this.

    > But the other two errors probably can be corrected. How?


    There's nothing you need to do with them either. They are caused by the
    formal rules of HTML 4.01 Strict. The rules require that all content in
    a <form> element be wrapped in block-level containers. There is no good
    reason to this, though the idea dates back to the age of HTML 2.0. You
    can use a <div> wrapper (the only block-level container with no side
    effects), <form ...><div><select ...>...</select></div></form>, but it
    serves no useful purpose (beyond silencing the validator).

    What you perhaps _should_ do something about is that your use of
    JavaScript is not unobtrusive. Check out what happens if you have
    disabled JavaScript. The select menu sits there, but if you make any
    selection there, it has no effect. It should be either backed up with
    server-side processing*) or generated with JavaScript code. In the
    latter case, the validator issue would disappear, as validators do not
    check JavaScript-generated code.

    *) This requires a submit button, but you can hide it when JavaScript is
    enabled, by enclosing it within a <noscript> element.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 22, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<ji21jt$6u8$>, Jukka K. Korpela says...
    >> What you perhaps _should_ do something about is that your use of
    >> JavaScript is not unobtrusive. Check out what happens if you have
    >> disabled JavaScript. The select menu sits there, but if you make any
    >> selection there, it has no effect. It should be either backed up with
    >> server-side processing*) or generated with JavaScript code. In the
    >> latter case, the validator issue would disappear, as validators do not
    >> check JavaScript-generated code.
    >>
    >> *) This requires a submit button, but you can hide it when JavaScript is
    >> enabled, by enclosing it within a<noscript> element.

    >
    > You mean something like this?
    >
    > <noscript>
    > <input ...>
    > </noscript>
    >
    > By the way, what % of people have Javascript disabled? Without
    > Javascript many websites can't be browsed nowadays.


    Too many can't be browsed with JavaScript enabled or disabled ;-)

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Feb 22, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:26:13 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    [snip]

    >By the way, what % of people have Javascript disabled? Without
    >Javascript many websites can't be browsed nowadays.


    And many can be. Due to security concerns, I have JavaScript
    disabled. NoScript is such a nice Firefox add-on.

    I have run across too many sites that require JavaScript be
    enabled just to handle links. I almost always bail on them.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Feb 22, 2012
    #3
  4. Jukka K. Korpela

    TK Guest

    On 2/22/2012 11:15 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:26:13 +0100, Alfred Molon
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >> By the way, what % of people have Javascript disabled? Without
    >> Javascript many websites can't be browsed nowadays.

    >
    > And many can be. Due to security concerns, I have JavaScript
    > disabled. NoScript is such a nice Firefox add-on.
    >
    > I have run across too many sites that require JavaScript be
    > enabled just to handle links. I almost always bail on them.


    The ones with JavaScript that really annoy me are the ones that draw out
    completely, check to see if it is enabled, and flip up a nearly blank
    page saying you need it enabled.


    --
    TK ~ aka Terry Kimpling
    http://wejuggle2.com/
    As a percentage, more turkeys can fly than people can do a backflip.
     
    TK, Feb 22, 2012
    #4
  5. 2012-02-22 19:41, TK wrote:

    > The ones with JavaScript that really annoy me are the ones that draw out
    > completely, check to see if it is enabled, and flip up a nearly blank
    > page saying you need it enabled.


    As a positive exception, StackOverflow.com (the programmers' paradise)
    just says, in a header at the very top,
    "Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled".
    It doesn't really say which experiences and features are missed, though.

    The paradoxical thing is that although the header is rather visible, on
    a red background, I have missed it once or twice. Sometimes unobtrusive
    JavaScript is _too_ unobtrusive.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 22, 2012
    #5
  6. 2012-02-22 20:11, Alfred Molon wrote:

    > Just checked. It seems that 99% of people have Javascript enabled. Only
    > 1% of people disable Javascript.


    It has been proved scientifically that 97.25% of all percentages have
    just been made up, and the remaining 3.75% have been miscalculated.

    1% of people is, by the way, about 68,405,070 human beings (and growing).

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 22, 2012
    #6
  7. On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:11:03 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Gene Wirchenko
    >says...
    >
    >> And many can be. Due to security concerns, I have JavaScript
    >> disabled. NoScript is such a nice Firefox add-on.
    >>
    >> I have run across too many sites that require JavaScript be
    >> enabled just to handle links. I almost always bail on them.

    >
    >Just checked. It seems that 99% of people have Javascript enabled. Only
    >1% of people disable Javascript.


    How would you know?

    Given all of the security issues, I prefer to stay in the 1% (or
    whatever it is) locking the door.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Feb 22, 2012
    #7
  8. Alfred Molon wrote:

    > Gene Wirchenko says...
    >> And many can be. Due to security concerns, I have JavaScript
    >> disabled. NoScript is such a nice Firefox add-on.
    >>
    >> I have run across too many sites that require JavaScript be
    >> enabled just to handle links. I almost always bail on them.


    AOL!

    > Just checked. It seems that 99% of people have Javascript enabled. Only
    > 1% of people disable Javascript.


    Your site may be at 1%. I'd be willing to hazard a guess that at sites
    like amazon.com and walmart.com the figure is 0% -- because you can't
    shop at all without it.

    My sites hover around the 4-5% mark. And JavaScript isn't required to do
    anything! ;-)

    --
    -bts
    -This space for rent, but the price is high
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 22, 2012
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. sviau
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    524
    Steven Cheng[MSFT]
    Feb 10, 2004
  2. Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,932
    Jukka K. Korpela
    Mar 19, 2007
  3. charles cashion

    code does not validate

    charles cashion, Dec 27, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    670
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Dec 28, 2007
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    229
  5. Thomas Mlynarczyk

    Re: Page does not validate

    Thomas Mlynarczyk, Feb 21, 2012, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    414
    Ben Bacarisse
    Feb 22, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page