W3C xhtml 1.0 transitional problem

[Spartaco]

I think that the use of the treeview control built on asp.net 2.0 makes the
page non xhtml 1.0 transitional compliant, in fact this control renders this
html:

<script>
<!--
function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) {
WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false);
}
// -->
</script>

as you can see the script tag misses the type attribute as showed by using
the w3c validator at http://validator.w3.org/check

Spa.-

 

[Alan Silver]

I think that the use of the treeview control built on asp.net 2.0 makes the
page non xhtml 1.0 transitional compliant, in fact this control renders this
html:

<script>
<!--
function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) {

WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,TreeView_ProcessNodeDat
a,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false);
}
// -->
</script>

as you can see the script tag misses the type attribute as showed by using
the w3c validator at http://validator.w3.org/check

That shouldn't make it fail if you have a transitional doctype. It would
make it fail with a strict doctype though. I was having this exact
problem, thinking that the framework emitted Strict, and then when I
realised it emitted transitional, I changed the doctype and this error
went away.

 

[Alan Silver]

That shouldn't make it fail if you have a transitional doctype. It
would make it fail with a strict doctype though. I was having this
exact problem, thinking that the framework emitted Strict, and then
when I realised it emitted transitional, I changed the doctype and this
error went away.

My comment above is of course is complete and utter rubbish. It is
indeed invalid XHTML, even with a Transitional doctype, and I submitted
this very point as a bug on the 13th Feb 06. You can see the lack of
response from MS at...

http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=df12fa82-05a0-412c-9e71-9da936759eca