Testing menu has problems to work out

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Richard, Dec 15, 2004.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    www.geocities.com/r_bullis/test1.html

    At least this menu works in netscape.
    Disregarding the colors of the divisions.
    Those will be removed later.

    What I'm looking at doing is to have the "text" beside the images more
    centered with the image and perhaps a bit more to the right.
    I'm not sure if it's within the javascript, but I keep finding roadblocks to
    do it the way I want to.

    The original was in strict.dtd but found out that doesn't like "float" so
    well.

    Anyone have any insight on how I can position the text where I want it?
    Richard, Dec 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:23:37 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
    wrote:

    >www.geocities.com/r_bullis/test1.html
    >
    >At least this menu works in netscape.
    >Disregarding the colors of the divisions.
    >Those will be removed later.


    Will the links actually lead anywhere when it's finished?

    >What I'm looking at doing is to have the "text" beside the images more
    >centered with the image and perhaps a bit more to the right.


    vertical-align and padding or margin will be your friends.

    >I'm not sure if it's within the javascript, but I keep finding roadblocks to
    >do it the way I want to.
    >
    >The original was in strict.dtd but found out that doesn't like "float" so
    >well.


    Rubbish. There's nothing in strict that prohibits any CSS properties.
    You're probably coding to an old buggy model and when you used a
    strict doctype it triggered standards mode in modern browsers.

    But seeing as you can't even make it valid HTML Transitional it's
    clear that you still have a lot of work and a lot of learning ahead of
    you.

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.geocities.com/r_bullis/test1.html

    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/...om/r_bullis/test1.html&warning=1&profile=css2

    Any why have you gone back to using mm for lengths? I thought we beat
    this into you last year?

    Steve
    Steve Pugh, Dec 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:23:37 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >www.geocities.com/r_bullis/test1.html
    > >
    > >At least this menu works in netscape.
    > >Disregarding the colors of the divisions.
    > >Those will be removed later.

    >
    > Will the links actually lead anywhere when it's finished?
    >


    Perhaps when it's done.


    > >What I'm looking at doing is to have the "text" beside the images more
    > >centered with the image and perhaps a bit more to the right.

    >
    > vertical-align and padding or margin will be your friends.
    >
    > >I'm not sure if it's within the javascript, but I keep finding roadblocks

    to
    > >do it the way I want to.
    > >
    > >The original was in strict.dtd but found out that doesn't like "float" so
    > >well.

    >
    > Rubbish. There's nothing in strict that prohibits any CSS properties.
    > You're probably coding to an old buggy model and when you used a
    > strict doctype it triggered standards mode in modern browsers.
    >
    > But seeing as you can't even make it valid HTML Transitional it's
    > clear that you still have a lot of work and a lot of learning ahead of
    > you.
    >
    >

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.geocities.com/r_bullis/test1.ht
    ml
    >
    >

    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.geocities.com/r_
    bullis/test1.html&warning=1&profile=css2
    >


    At this point I don't care if it validates or not.
    Without looking, let me guess. NO alt in the images right?
    And of course, validator 3 plays hell with the embedded crap from yahoo.


    > Any why have you gone back to using mm for lengths? I thought we beat
    > this into you last year?


    In this issue I feel that using mm instead of px or em's keeps the display
    looking the same regardless of window size or resolution.

    Now a little nit picking.
    Item #1 says the division is not open, when it is part of a variable within
    the javascript. This is not an error.

    Item #2 through #8.
    The division is clearly defined and properly opened and closed.
    Apparently, the validator does not like divisions in a variable.

    item #10.
    var msg4 = 'Visit <a href="http://www.dyn-web.com">Dynamic Web Coding</a>
    for many more great scripts.';

    Error reports closing tag found but not open.
    Again, this validator apparently does not like this method.

    Jigsaw reported two minor syntax errors easily corrected.

    I'm surprised that this time there were no errors for not having "alt" in
    the images.

    I believe this validator needs some tweaking to parse the javascript
    routines better.
    Oh I already know your response to this one.
    Richard, Dec 15, 2004
    #3
  4. Jeffrey Silverman, Dec 15, 2004
    #4
  5. Richard

    Darin McGrew Guest

    Darin McGrew, Dec 15, 2004
    #5
  6. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Darin McGrew brings to light that an entity that
    had already burrowed its way into my killfile had posted this...

    > Richard <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
    > > I believe this validator needs some tweaking to parse the javascript
    > > routines better.


    This troublemaker wants the validator broken so that it's no longer a
    validator any more.

    Raising the screen temporarily, I see that they also remarked:

    || At this point I don't care if it validates or not.

    So one wonders why they're so keen on breaking the validator.
    Alan J. Flavell, Dec 15, 2004
    #6
  7. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Darin McGrew brings to light that an entity that
    > had already burrowed its way into my killfile had posted this...
    >
    > > Richard <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
    > > > I believe this validator needs some tweaking to parse the javascript
    > > > routines better.

    >
    > This troublemaker wants the validator broken so that it's no longer a
    > validator any more.
    >
    > Raising the screen temporarily, I see that they also remarked:
    >
    > || At this point I don't care if it validates or not.
    >
    > So one wonders why they're so keen on breaking the validator.



    Dumbass, understand the point of the file ---->> testing!

    I did not write the script!

    <quote>
    end tags are recognized within SCRIPT elements, but other kinds of
    markup--such as start tags and comments--are not.
    </quote>

    Therfor, the validator is correct in processing the error.
    In a way, I can understand why it is that way.
    Richard, Dec 15, 2004
    #7
  8. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "Darin McGrew" <> wrote in message
    news:cppuio$9hr$...
    > Richard <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
    > > I believe this validator needs some tweaking to parse the javascript
    > > routines better.

    >
    > See http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#script
    >
    > > Oh I already know your response to this one.

    >
    > Were you right?


    With what you posted here, I can understand better the reasons for the
    errors.
    If it accepts things like end tags, why can it not accept the start tag?
    After all, it keeps on saying, "which is not open".
    Well duhhhh, if the originator (of sgml that is) would correct his own
    mistake, then the validator would not create the error.

    if it was an error, why does it work?
    Richard, Dec 15, 2004
    #8
  9. Richard

    Richard Guest

    "Darin McGrew" <> wrote in message
    news:cppuio$9hr$...
    > Richard <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
    > > I believe this validator needs some tweaking to parse the javascript
    > > routines better.

    >
    > See http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#script
    >
    > > Oh I already know your response to this one.

    >
    > Were you right?


    BTW thanks for the tip. with the addition of a simple \ all the errors on
    the end tags have gone away.
    Richard, Dec 15, 2004
    #9
  10. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:06:15 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:

    >"Darin McGrew" <> wrote in message
    >news:cppuio$9hr$...
    >> Richard <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
    >> > I believe this validator needs some tweaking to parse the javascript
    >> > routines better.


    >> See http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#script


    >> > Oh I already know your response to this one.


    >> Were you right?


    >With what you posted here, I can understand better the reasons for the
    >errors. If it accepts things like end tags, why can it not accept the
    >start tag?


    Because you have to grow a better understanding of what CDATA stands
    for. All internal parts of a 'SCRIPT' element is declared to be CDATA.

    In a CDATA context the parser is told to pass just all and everything it
    finds over to a following application (the javascript interpreter in
    your case)

    But here comes the "snag"; it is very easy to start an element that is
    defined to contain only CDATA, but what shall the parser look for to
    find out where the CDATA context ends? if it's only duty within CDATA is
    to pass everything straight through?

    So it has once been decided that the character sequence of </ (i.e. the
    ETAGO = EndTAGOpen) shall be the 'mark' that the parser shall look for
    as a signal that "my CDATA context area ends here".

    Following that; if you use e.g. document.write('</P>') somewhere inside
    your script; at the very first point where the parser finds that </ it
    will revert to PCDATA parsing of that particular </ sequence and all the
    rest that follows.

    So in the example of </P> the parser will find a closing P tag for a P
    element that has never been opened and an error report is obvious.

    Write all your </whatever> tags as escaped <\/whatever> tags in your
    scripts and the validator will give you a pat on your back :)

    >After all, it keeps on saying, "which is not open".
    >Well duhhhh, if the originator (of sgml that is) would correct his own
    >mistake...


    You are "Don Qioute" right? :)

    SGML is an international ISO level standard that has been recognized by
    representatives from some well over 100+ countries in the world.

    Sorry to be the one that brings you the message, but probably millions
    of man/woman hours has been spent in thinking and discussions on how to
    make SGML a real standard. I find it hard to believe that just your
    input would make a difference.

    >...then the validator would not create the error.


    You need to learn how it is designed to work sonny; Escape your ETAGO's
    inside script content and you are all set to go. That method was
    provided for you in the standard that you keep cursing out of ignorance.

    --
    Rex
    Jan Roland Eriksson, Dec 15, 2004
    #10
  11. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:

    > Write all your </whatever> tags as escaped <\/whatever> tags in your
    > scripts and the validator will give you a pat on your back :)


    Which, of course, anyone interested in HTML will have already found
    here: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.2.1

    Don't get me started on XHTML's answer to this, though.
    Alan J. Flavell, Dec 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Richard

    Darin McGrew Guest

    Jan Roland Eriksson <> wrote:
    > Write all your </whatever> tags as escaped <\/whatever> tags in your
    > scripts and the validator will give you a pat on your back :)


    Better yet, move the script to an external file, and you no longer have to
    worry about it.
    --
    Darin McGrew, , http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
    Web Design Group, , http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

    "There are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't."
    Darin McGrew, Dec 15, 2004
    #12
    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. Miguel Dias Moura
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,291
    Bruno Sirianni
    Apr 3, 2004
  2. Brian van den Broek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    837
    Jeremy Bowers
    Apr 3, 2005
  3. Brian van den Broek
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    388
    Brian van den Broek
    Apr 5, 2005
  4. Chris

    Testing and Load Testing

    Chris, Mar 4, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    322
  5. John Maclean
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    337
    Martin P. Hellwig
    Apr 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page