- From: Tig <tigger@lvlworld.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:37:26 +1000
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 03:22:47PM +0100, David Dorward wrote: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 12:27:43AM +1000, Tigger wrote: > > I believe the validator is wrong with the following XHTML > > > > This is invalid (NOTE: may be wraped, was all one line): > > <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">document.write('<a > > href="#" onclick="thumbs(); return false;">Doom 3 engine</a>');</script> > > The validator is not wrong. > > "In XHTML, the script and style elements are declared as having > #PCDATA content. As a result, < and & will be treated as the start > of markup" > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.8 > > > However, this is valid: > > <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> > > <!-- > > document.write('<a href="#" onclick="thumbs(); return false;">Doom 3 > > engine</a>'); > > // --> > > </script> > > Yes, you've commented it out. If your client was treating your XHTML > as XML instead of broken HTML it would be entirely ignored. > > > Also, this is invalid, however I can't work out why: > > <noscript><a href="/shots.php?e=d3">Doom 3 engine</a></noscript> > > <!ELEMENT NOSCRIPT - - (%block;)+ > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.3.1 > > The element can contain only block level children. <a> is inline. > > -- > David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk > Thank you for your reply. I've now change the XHTML samples above to the following, which now validate. <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> //<![CDATA[ document.write('<a href="#" onclick="thumbs(); return false;">Doom 3 engine</a>'); //]]> </script> and <noscript><span class="tDate"><a href="/shots.php?e=d3">Doom 3 engine</a></span></noscript> But is that correct? Including //<![CDATA[ and //]]> seems like a hack to get around the validator. Placing a <span> between the noscripts tags makes sense as noscript is a block element and I did have a span tag on the 'outside' before. -Tig
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 12:32:46 UTC