Thanks for taking time to comment.
I think your too kind.
Thanks for leaving a comment. Very nice result
in IE (I've not tried it yet in other browsers)
from the code in your link. Thanks for the link
First, thanks for taking the time for your comments.
I agree with one of your statements but I disagree on another.
1) That page has many errors
- Yes, there will be validation errors for the listed example, I really though that fact was noted by the Quirks mode label I put above the example, although the fadeShow object itself can be used in a validating page.
I think its only right to point out the above Quirks mode example in reality has only 1 validation error (no document declaration) and 6 pretty standard warnings for Quirks mode. The many errors
you report seems to be based on trying to validate this page - the codingforums page. Irregardless, presenting non-validating pages in Quirks mode is neither unknown nor uncommon. Here are some current examples that you will find don't validate as of this post:
To answer the question can the example code validate? - the answer is yes, just take it out of Quirks mode by replacing the
<html xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
The result with be validating code with 4 warnings, and FF will display a visual adjustment of the images as described above in the particulars and object code
You can get the example down to one warning (you will always have one warning validating HTML5 as of this post) by adding the following meta tag in the head:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" >
2) and it isn't "unobtrusive."
- Here I disagree, it is unobtrusive. I'm not sure what your looking at to provide the following statement:
as there is no code in the body. The only code in the page is the calling code in the head. The fadeShow itself can be kept in as external script as stated in the 1
step instructions at the top of the page describe.
3) The page causes my Firefox version 3.6.8 to lock
- Unfortunately I can't say anything about that as I have not tried it with 3.6.8(the latest version as this posting). I do know it works on earlier versions of FF along with Chrome, Windows Safari, and IE.
Note -I think there is a valid argument that hasn't been made that image paths were used - not images, and the initial style hides the ul's. The fadeShow object itself can easily be adjusted to work with images instead of paths.
Anyway, it's very good to have criticism. Again thanks for taking the time to look and comment.