Testing menu has problems to work out

[Richard]

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?

 

[Steve Pugh]

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

 

[Richard]

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

Perhaps when it's done.

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


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.

 

[Jeffrey Silverman]

www.geocities.com/r_bullis/test1.html

For goshamunugget's sake, people! Please put "http://" on the front of
links when posting. Sheesh.

 

[Darin McGrew]

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?

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

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.

 

[Richard]

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]

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


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]

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


Were you right?

BTW thanks for the tip. with the addition of a simple \ all the errors on
the end tags have gone away.

 

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

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.

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.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

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.

 

[Darin McGrew]

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.