I cannot see anything wrong with this document:
it validates, but the javascript is never called.
Is there a typo I just cannot see?!
it validates, but the javascript is never called.
Is there a typo I just cannot see?!
-
-
Re: javascript stopped working?
On May 7, 2:50 pm, Rick Merrill <rick0.merr...@ gmail.comwrote:Yes, line 135:I cannot see anything wrong with this document:http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejaynehm/B...iles/BadNowPla...
>
it validates, but the javascript is never called.
>
Is there a typo I just cannot see?!
document.write( "<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
"Dawn Patrol"<br>" );
should be:
document.write( "<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
\"Dawn Patrol\"<br>" );
cheers,
-
Re: javascript stopped working?
tommybiegs@gmai l.com wrote:ohmygd! It's the first time I put double quotes in a description!On May 7, 2:50 pm, Rick Merrill <rick0.merr...@ gmail.comwrote:>>I cannot see anything wrong with this document:http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejaynehm/B...iles/BadNowPla...
>>
>it validates, but the javascript is never called.
>>
>Is there a typo I just cannot see?!
Yes, line 135:
>
document.write( "<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
"Dawn Patrol"<br>" );
>
should be:
>
document.write( "<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
\"Dawn Patrol\"<br>" );
>
cheers,
>
THANK YOU!!!!
Comment
-
Re: javascript stopped working?
Rick Merrill wrote:Another victim. I struggled with this for quite some time before II cannot see anything wrong with this document:
>
>
it validates, but the javascript is never called.
>
Is there a typo I just cannot see?!
figured out what was wrong.
First, I assume you are talking about IE, because FF is OK. I found
that I had unclosed tags and that was what was causing the problem Do a
W3C validation. If there are any unclosed tags (and I assume there
are), then close them.
(I spent at least 20 hours, and a couple of restless nights, tracking
this one down.)
Comment
-
Re: javascript stopped working?
tommybiegs@gmai l.com wrote:Or if you want to avoid the escape sequences, simplyOn May 7, 2:50 pm, Rick Merrill <rick0.merr...@ gmail.comwrote:>>I cannot see anything wrong with this document:http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejaynehm/B...iles/BadNowPla...
>>
>it validates, but the javascript is never called.
>>
>Is there a typo I just cannot see?!
Yes, line 135:
>
document.write( "<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
"Dawn Patrol"<br>" );
>
should be:
>
document.write( "<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
\"Dawn Patrol\"<br>" );
document.write( '<br><tt>Wed 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
"Dawn Patrol"<br>');
While the markup is valid, from the usability and reliability perspective
the OP still has much to answer for. The whole thing should be a table, and
all dentifiers should be declared to begin with.
PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
Comment
-
Re: javascript stopped working?
sheldonlg wrote:Oh, it was validating just dandy - at least usingRick Merrill wrote:>>I cannot see anything wrong with this document:
>http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejaynehm/B...NowPlaying.htm
>>
>>
>it validates, but the javascript is never called.
>>
>Is there a typo I just cannot see?!
Another victim. I struggled with this for quite some time before I
figured out what was wrong.
>
First, I assume you are talking about IE, because FF is OK. I found
that I had unclosed tags and that was what was causing the problem Do a
W3C validation. If there are any unclosed tags (and I assume there
are), then close them.
>
(I spent at least 20 hours, and a couple of restless nights, tracking
this one down.)
http://validator.w3.org/ did not check javascript.
I use SeaMonkey (Mozilla) which does not complain, but then
it wasn't taking the javascript anywhere: in other words
the embedded "print" statements did not operate because, apparently,
of this one bug.
Comment
-
Re: javascript stopped working?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:You can be as obfuscatory as your namesake ;-)tommybiegs@gmai l.com wrote:>>On May 7, 2:50 pm, Rick Merrill <rick0.merr...@ gmail.comwrote:>Yes, line 135:>>I cannot see anything wrong with this document:http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejaynehm/B...iles/BadNowPla...
>>>
>>it validates, but the javascript is never called.
>>>
>>Is there a typo I just cannot see?!
>>
>document.write ("<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
>"Dawn Patrol"<br>" );
>>
>should be:
>>
>document.write ("<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
>\"Dawn Patrol\"<br>" );
Or if you want to avoid the escape sequences, simply
>
document.write( '<br><tt>Wed 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
"Dawn Patrol"<br>');
>
While the markup is valid, from the usability and reliability perspective
the OP still has much to answer for. The whole thing should be a table, and
all [i]dentifiers should be declared to begin with.
>
>
PointedEars
Most people (used to) call a switch-case construct a table.
Subsequently it is not clear what you are talking about here.
Comment
-
Re: javascript stopped working?
Rick Merrill wrote:I will take that as a compliment, in the spirit of the supposed charactersThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:>>tommybiegs@gmai l.com wrote:>Or if you want to avoid the escape sequences, simply>>document.writ e("<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
>>"Dawn Patrol"<br>" );
>>>
>>should be:
>>>
>>document.writ e("<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
>>\"Dawn Patrol\"<br>" );
>>
> document.write( '<br><tt>Wed 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
>"Dawn Patrol"<br>');
>>
>While the markup is valid, from the usability and reliability perspective
>the OP still has much to answer for. The whole thing should be a table, and
>all [i]dentifiers should be declared to begin with.
>[...]
You can be as obfuscatory as your namesake ;-)
this property was attributed to. But even if that was true, so what? You
on the other hand are not able to quote properly as can be expected from the
standards-violating news server you are using, which adds to obfuscation as
well.
Of course I am not; I am talking HTML tables here, which should be createdMost people (used to) call a switch-case construct a table.
dynamically (best server-side) instead of this semantically wrong tag soup.
It is obvious that it is not clear *to you*. Therefore, after havingSubsequently it is not clear what you are talking about here.
carefully read the FAQ[1] and followed the recommendations therein, you
should have asked one or more *specific* questions if still necessary
then, so that I might have been be able and willing to answer them.
[1] http://jibbering.com/faq/
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
Comment
-
Re: javascript stopped working?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:Rick Merrill wrote:>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:>You can be as obfuscatory as your namesake ;-)>>tommybiegs@gmai l.com wrote:
>>>document.wri te("<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
>>>"Dawn Patrol"<br>" );
>>>>
>>>should be:
>>>>
>>>document.wri te("<br><tt>We d 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
>>>\"Dawn Patrol\"<br>" );
>>Or if you want to avoid the escape sequences, simply
>>>
>> document.write( '<br><tt>Wed 7 May 9:25 am <\/tt>Old Movie
>>"Dawn Patrol"<br>');
>>>
>>While the markup is valid, from the usability and reliability perspective
>>the OP still has much to answer for. The whole thing should be a table, and
>>all [i]dentifiers should be declared to begin with.
>>[...]
I will take that as a compliment, in the spirit of the supposed characters
this property was attributed to. But even if that was true, so what? You
on the other hand are not able to quote properly as can be expected from the
standards-violating news server you are using, which adds to obfuscation as
well.
>>>Most people (used to) call a switch-case construct a table.
Of course I am not; I am talking HTML tables here, which should be created
dynamically (best server-side) instead of this semantically wrong tag soup.
>>>Subsequently it is not clear what you are talking about here.
It is obvious that it is not clear *to you*. Therefore, after having
carefully read the FAQ[1] and followed the recommendations therein, you
should have asked one or more *specific* questions if still necessary
then, so that I might have been be able and willing to answer them.
>
[1] http://jibbering.com/faq/
>
>
PointedEars
O' pointed one, my original question had already been answered quite
satisfactorily, thank you.
(and yes, it was a compliment)
Comment
Comment