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

[Re: JSLint validation page has HTML issues

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.