Re: nesting JS in echo's

Seni Seven wrote:
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in comp.lang.php:

Seni Seven wrote:
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in comp.lang.php:

Seni Seven wrote:
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in comp.lang.php:

Seni Seven wrote:
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in comp.lang.php:

Request-1 wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gf2t4m$inr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Request-1 wrote:
hi folks,

html coder here, new and terrified * of php!!
aaaaaa!

i'm trying to bury a JS script to rotate a photo, in a page i
converted from html to php.
the conversion went well, it was to use a php session cookie
to stop the repeating of an embedded video file on a per
session basis; i amended the php code to display a still pic
if the session cookie value was nil.

worked fine.

thought I'd try integrating a tested and true JS image random
rotator script into the echo command, but the problem was the
syntax of the single quotes and double quotes needed in the
doc.write and variable sequences in the JS.

i tried escaping the double quotes (my echo used double
quotes), but to no avail.

here's the JS CODE i use in the tail end of my PHP. "picnumber" is the variable holding the randomly assigned
number that chooses the picture.

any help much appreciated..


++++++++++++++++

{ echo "

<script language='JavaScript1.2'>
<!-- begin
document.write(\"'<img src='images/swap/'+ picnumber +
'.jpg'>\"); // end -->
</script>
"; }

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

thanks
You have an extra single quote before <img ...
Hi Jerry,

the single quote is actually necessary in JS when you're using document.write to add strings in series (is it called
"concatenating" or something?). so the <img src...> statement
was broken down into 3 seperate stings to be re-joined - all
within the double-quote nested doc.write stmt. my mistake was
to leave the image path in single quotes; instead I tried
"escaped double quotes" to complete the image path, like so,

{ echo "<script language='JavaScript1.2'>\n";
echo "<!-- begin \n";
echo "document.write('<img src=\"images/swap/' + picnumber
+'.jpg\" width=\"320\" height=\"240\" border=\"0\" alt=\"Fitness
Training Image\">');\n";
echo "// end -->\n";
echo "</script>"; }


but no avail. still no pic shows up.

anyway. i get really confused with all the nested stuff and
single-double quotes. i may try that "heredoc" thing that
Thomas suggested. I'll need a couple of beers first. Friday
night on Javascript? Bad!


BTW - you don't need quotes around numeric values like your
width, height and border. Only non-numeric data.
Are you talking about generating strict (X)HTML? Quotes must be
on all element attributes in that case, regardless of attribute
value type.


1. There is no indication this is XHTML.
2. You shouldn't use XHTML for web pages - it's not well supported
by some browser, not the least being IE 6 and 7.
Actually, many can and do use XHTML for web pages.

I looked at this page successfully using IE7. The web document was
written by NONE OTHER THAN BY THE W3 Consortium itself, the
standards- setting (they use the term "recommendations" modestly
instead of "standards") in strict XHTML. Go figure.

Sure, you CAN make pages which will cater to the different browsers idiosyncrasies, but why? Where is the need for xhtml?

There are various documents that can be googled that specify
solutions wo using XHTML for broken browsers like Internet
Explorer, such as using an XML style*** also to get around
problems with showing XHTML in standards-violating,
never-get-it-right HTTP clients like Internet Explorer. This is
not rocket science.

HTML does NOT require quotes on numeric attributes.
Actually the HTML 4 recommendation does not assert in any way
whatsoever that quotes can be omitted for attributes that have
numeric values. It does allow for their omission, but recommends
they always be used. There is no indication about whether this
recommendation applies to the various levels of HTML: strict,
transitional, frameset.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html#attributes

Which backs up my claim that HTML does NOT require quotes on numeric
attributes.
If you really want to split hairs, as you apparently want to do, the loosest usage of HTML doesn't require quotes on any attribute values except in the very few circumstances that your determined attempts to
confuse the browser do not achieve the rendering you desire.

Here is one individual's take on SCRUPULOUSLY quoting all attribute
values in HTML, which MUST be quoted in every case in XHTML:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/qattr.html

He is or was a regular (long-time) and, I believe, respected
contributer to the HTML usage newsgroups.
So? That's one person's opinion. Worth no more or less than anyone
else's opinion.
Actually, the HTML standards keepers RECOMMEND (though they don't
REQUIRE) you to quote attribute values----ALL OF THEM.

But then you have already established that you are a hair-splitter.

Perhaps you'd like to disparage the "opinions" of the HTML standards keepers too?

Search enough and you can find an opinion you agree with anywhere on
the internet.
Precisely right!

But then I am not so desperate to support my claims on the sole
"opinion" of one kook with a web page against the 99,999 opinions of
people who impress me with reason and logic and a certain level of
erudition, some of whom actually sit on standards-setting committees
like the one that promulgates the HTML specification.

Oh my!

A new word of the day:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
For starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer

"Trident layout engine, fully supports HTML 4.01, CSS Level 1, XML 1.0
and DOM Level 1, with minor implementation gaps. It partially supports
CSS Level 2 and DOM Level 2, with major implementation gaps and conformance issues. Full conformance to the CSS 2.1 specification is
on the agenda for the final Internet Explorer 8 release.[32] It has no
support for XHTML, though it can render XHTML documents authored with HTML compatibility principles and served with a text/html MIME-type."

And tens of thousands of similar pages.

What part of that XHTML page that I gave in the response (inserted here for the readers: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq) did not conform to the XHTML specification???

Tricking broken browsers---in HTTP response headers, in meta elements, etc.----that don't comply with either the HTML or XHTML specification---
notwithstanding your hilarious citation of a Wikipedia article whose content is known to be notoriously inaccurate---is not the fault of page developers. Perhaps instead of recommending that page developers shy away from using XHTML in STARK CONTRAST to the HTML specification writers URGING you to do so, you should be telling them to include alternately served documents with the simple statement urging their readers to stop using broken browsers. Many developers do JUST that, just as many developers that serve script-dependent content tell their readers that the scientific/chemistry calculator they want to use won't work unless they enable their browser to use scripts.

And in finishing:

Best practices are that attribute values in HTML---all of them---are quoted, as RECOMMENDED by those who promulgated the HTML specificiation. To insist on deviating from best practices is altogether foolish.

If you find Wikipedia to be inaccurate, you are free to edit it and correct the inaccuracies. That's what it's all about. If you fail to do that, that's your problem.

But you also haven't identified exactly WHAT is inaccurate about this article - only made a generic statement. Specifically WHAT is inaccurate, and how are you going to correct it?

And I didn't say whether something was recommended or not. I said that quotes were not REQUIRED around numeric values. And they are not.

Pages validate quite well with W3C's only HTML validator when numbers are not in quotes. It doesn't even give a warning.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==================
.

Quantcast