Transitional validation with "noscript"

Hi,

I was trying to make my main page compliant (as per w3.org) for HTML
Transitional 4.01, and there's one error I can't solve:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidsevi lla.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline &group=0&ss=1

>From what I've read around, I think it's related to having "noscript"
inside a "p". And sure enough, if I remove the noscript, the page
validates. I have it in place there because I try to get my email in
the page with Javascript (to avoid some spam) and I want an
alternative for those who may turn it off. Well, actually it's more
out of curiosity that I'd like to find a neat solution :)

Thanks in advance,

David

Re: Transitional validation with "noscript"

sevillad wrote:

> I was trying to make my main page compliant (as per w3.org) for HTML
> Transitional 4.01, and there's one error I can't solve:

(why not HTML 4.01 strict?)

>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidsevi lla.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline &group=0&ss=1
>
>>From what I've read around, I think it's related to having "noscript"
> inside a "p". And sure enough, if I remove the noscript, the page
> validates. I have it in place there because I try to get my email in
> the page with Javascript (to avoid some spam) and I want an
> alternative for those who may turn it off. Well, actually it's more
> out of curiosity that I'd like to find a neat solution :)

It's not the

tag is automatically (deemed to be) closed when the parser
comes to the

Re: Transitional validation with "noscript"

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed sevillad
writing in news:1188838643.367029.110840@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

> Hi,
>
> I was trying to make my main page compliant (as per w3.org) for HTML
> Transitional 4.01, and there's one error I can't solve:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidsevi lla.com%
2F&
> charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&ss =1
>
>>From what I've read around, I think it's related to having "noscript"
> inside a "p".

Yes, because NOSCRIPT is a block level element, and the P element cannot
contain other block level elements.

And sure enough, if I remove the noscript, the page
> validates. I have it in place there because I try to get my email in
> the page with Javascript (to avoid some spam) and I want an
> alternative for those who may turn it off. Well, actually it's more
> out of curiosity that I'd like to find a neat solution :)
>

Change the structure:

Phone: +43 (0)732 2468 5229

Fax: +43 (0)732 2468 5212

Re: Transitional validation with "noscript"

Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed sevillad
> writing in news:1188838643.367029.110840@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

>> I was trying to make my main page compliant

>> http://www.davidsevilla.com/
>>
>> >From what I've read around, I think it's related to having "noscript"
>> inside a "p".
>
> Yes, because NOSCRIPT is a block level element, and the P element cannot
> contain other block level elements.

Well, I'll be dipped. You're right; it is.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#edef-NOSCRI PT

And yet .

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: Transitional validation with "noscript"

Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:00:50
> GMT John Hosking scribed:
> > Adrienne Boswell wrote:

>>> Yes, because NOSCRIPT is a block level element, and the P element
>>> cannot contain other block level elements.
>> Well, I'll be dipped. You're right; it is.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#edef-NOSCRI PT
>>
>> And yet .

Okay, so now it makes sense. That happens sometimes after I actually
think about them. :-)

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/

Re: Transitional validation with "noscript"

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 01:17:44 GMT
John Hosking scribed:

>>>> Yes, because NOSCRIPT is a block level element, and the P element
>>>> cannot contain other block level elements.
>>> Well, I'll be dipped. You're right; it is.
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#edef-NOSCRI PT
>>>
>>> And yet .
>
> Okay, so now it makes sense. That happens sometimes after I actually
> think about them. :-)

He he, yes, I know what you mean. :)

What I said didn't actually occur to me until I read your message.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: Transitional validation with "noscript"

Hi,

On Sep 3, 7:10 pm, John Hosking
wrote:
> sevillad wrote:
> > I was trying to make my main page compliant (as per w3.org) for HTML
> > Transitional 4.01, and there's one error I can't solve:
>
> (why not HTML 4.01 strict?)

I decided some time ago about Transitional, if I remember well it was
because of some code (statcounter.com?) that was giving me trouble and
I didn't want to change. But yes, I'll make it all Strict compliant.

Thanks all for the answers and insight!

David