- From: Simon Lodal <simonl@parknet.dk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:53:15 +0200
- 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 UTC