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

Re: JSLint validation page has HTML issues

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Crockford
    ... No.
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.