- From: Jim <ttocsmij@infoblvd.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:41:51 -0400
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, Jim <ttocsmij@infoblvd.net>, www-validator@w3.org
Eureka! Well, sort of. I AM just an amateur after all. Your reference to the fine W3 document yielded no useful clues to me about the "nesting" problem. However, the Hixie page told the story ... that XML can't perform the functionality of a simple Javascript "document.write" without involving another whole layer of complication ... sounds like another Microsoft foobar to me but W3 enthusiasts assure me that Microsoft was not involved! ;-) And I shall follow Mr. Hickson's excellent advice and go back to nice, simple HTML coding ... my preference is KISS anyhow and this XML stuff seems pretty counter-intuitive and counter-productive. Which probably explains why it has been shoved down the throat of corporate America in a big way. Say, wouldn't that require a monopoly? ;-) But I ramble ... thanks for the feedback, David, and have a great day! cheers jim David Dorward wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 05:57:16PM -0400, Jim wrote: >> [ Just for fun I thought I would try to validate my home page against >> XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Had to re-define line spacing, add some >> formatting, and add type tags and lots of slashes. But the XML parser is >> confused by a closing tag that is inside quotes as part of a >> document.write function. Have a nice day! ] > > It isn't confused, you are. I'll draw your attention to: > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.8 (and yes, that means you are > commenting your CSS out entirely too[1]) and > http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml > > > [1] Your browser won't notice if you serve it as text/html (which also > renders the use of XHTML rather pointless). >
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 06:47:32 UTC