W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [VE][127] Error Message Feedback

From: Simon Lodal <simonl@parknet.dk>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:53:15 +0200
Message-ID: <40D847DB.5040506@parknet.dk>
To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org


Thanks for your answers. I stand corrected.

It seems unnecessarily troubled. Why have a default with such a narrow 
scope? A script default that does not apply to scripts, only 
not-really-scripts? It probably makes sense for parsers and DOM, to an 
author it is only confusing.

Anyway, standard being what it is, the validator is right.


Simon



Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
 >
 > <http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.1>:
 >
 > [...]
 >   Authors must supply a value for this attribute.
 > [...]
 >
 > The HTML 4.01 DTDs thus require the presence of the type attribute. If
 > you think the HTML 4.01 DTDs are in error in this regard, you should
 > contact the HTML Working Group through the www-html-editor@w3.org list.

David Dorward wrote:
> 
> That is not an error with the validator. The DTD says that the type  
> attribute is required for all <script> elements, therefore the  
> validator reports missing type attributes as errors.
> 
> This isn't an error with the DTD either, the  
> fake-http-header-which-has-more-priority-then-a-real-http-header-of- 
> the-same-name[1] applies to intrinsic events (such as onclick and  
> onmousedown), not to <script> blocks. I admit that it took me several  
> readings of the prose part of the specification to twig this.
> 
> [1] Do you get the impression that I think this should have been done  
> using name rather then http-equiv?
> 
> -- 
> David Dorward
>      <http://dorward.me.uk/>
> <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 11:10:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:14 GMT