Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: JSLint validation page has HTML issues

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Crockford
    ... No thanks. I think DOCTYPE was a mistake. Certainly, requiring type on script src was a mistake.
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 20, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Lorrain" <yahoo@...> wrote:
      > There some HTML issues on the page http://www.jslint.com/
      >
      > Very easy to fix, so please let's do it.
      >
      > line 1 column 1 - Warning: missing <!DOCTYPE> declaration
      > line 2 column 1 - Warning: <style> inserting "type" attribute
      > line 148 column 1 - Warning: <script> inserting "type" attribute
      > line 149 column 1 - Warning: <script> inserting "type" attribute

      No thanks. I think DOCTYPE was a mistake. Certainly, requiring type on
      script src was a mistake.
    • Fred Lorrain
      ... I don t clearly undersand you(English is not my mother tong). Will you fix the issues or I made a mistake in my analysis?
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 11, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Lorrain" <yahoo@> wrote:
        > > There some HTML issues on the page http://www.jslint.com/
        > >
        > > Very easy to fix, so please let's do it.
        > >
        > > line 1 column 1 - Warning: missing <!DOCTYPE> declaration
        > > line 2 column 1 - Warning: <style> inserting "type" attribute
        > > line 148 column 1 - Warning: <script> inserting "type" attribute
        > > line 149 column 1 - Warning: <script> inserting "type" attribute
        >
        > No thanks. I think DOCTYPE was a mistake. Certainly, requiring type on
        > script src was a mistake.
        >

        I don't clearly undersand you(English is not my mother tong).
        Will you fix the issues or I made a mistake in my analysis?
      • Douglas Crockford
        ... No.
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 12, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Lorrain" <yahoo@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Lorrain" <yahoo@> wrote:
          > > > There some HTML issues on the page http://www.jslint.com/
          > > >
          > > > Very easy to fix, so please let's do it.
          > > >
          > > > line 1 column 1 - Warning: missing <!DOCTYPE> declaration
          > > > line 2 column 1 - Warning: <style> inserting "type" attribute
          > > > line 148 column 1 - Warning: <script> inserting "type" attribute
          > > > line 149 column 1 - Warning: <script> inserting "type" attribute
          > >
          > > No thanks. I think DOCTYPE was a mistake. Certainly, requiring type on
          > > script src was a mistake.
          > >
          >
          > I don't clearly understand you(English is not my mother tong).
          > Will you fix the issues or I made a mistake in my analysis?

          No.
        • Fred Lorrain
          Ok now I understand your answer. You said that type is not mandatory with . It seems that now we should use type= application/javascript and not
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 22, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Ok now I understand your answer.
            You said that type is not mandatory with <script>.

            It seems that now we should use type="application/javascript"
            and not anymore type="text/javascript"

            http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt

            So Ok to not add the type property to the <script> but the DOCTYPE is
            still missing.

            --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Lorrain" <yahoo@> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@>
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Lorrain" <yahoo@> wrote:
            > > > > There some HTML issues on the page http://www.jslint.com/
            > > > >
            > > > > Very easy to fix, so please let's do it.
            > > > >
            > > > > line 1 column 1 - Warning: missing <!DOCTYPE> declaration
            > > > > line 2 column 1 - Warning: <style> inserting "type" attribute
            > > > > line 148 column 1 - Warning: <script> inserting "type" attribute
            > > > > line 149 column 1 - Warning: <script> inserting "type" attribute
            > > >
            > > > No thanks. I think DOCTYPE was a mistake. Certainly, requiring
            type on
            > > > script src was a mistake.
            > > >
            > >
            > > I don't clearly understand you(English is not my mother tong).
            > > Will you fix the issues or I made a mistake in my analysis?
            >
            > No.
            >
          • Douglas Crockford
            ... I do not believe in DOCTYPE. Like much of the W3C stack, it is a well-intentioned blunder.
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 23, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Lorrain" <yahoo@...> wrote:
              >
              > Ok now I understand your answer.
              > You said that type is not mandatory with <script>.
              >
              > It seems that now we should use type="application/javascript"
              > and not anymore type="text/javascript"
              >
              > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt
              >
              > So Ok to not add the type property to the <script> but the DOCTYPE is
              > still missing.

              I do not believe in DOCTYPE. Like much of the W3C stack, it is a
              well-intentioned blunder.
            • Fred Lorrain
              ... Application/javascript is not working with IE. I will them continue to use and to recommend type= text/javascript in every About DOCTYPE, all
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 3, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Lorrain" <yahoo@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Ok now I understand your answer.
                > > You said that type is not mandatory with <script>.
                > >
                > > It seems that now we should use type="application/javascript"
                > > and not anymore type="text/javascript"
                > >
                > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt
                > >
                > > So Ok to not add the type property to the <script> but the DOCTYPE is
                > > still missing.
                >
                > I do not believe in DOCTYPE. Like much of the W3C stack, it is a
                > well-intentioned blunder.
                >

                Application/javascript is not working with IE.
                I will them continue to use and to recommend type="text/javascript" in
                every <script>

                About DOCTYPE, all HTML validators want it. There is a huge impact on
                your page if you use it or not.
                I recommend to use the right one on every pages.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.