Okay, thanks for the tip. I do tend to be a bit fussy about things validating properly, but I suppose that as long as it doesn't break anything in any browsers (and it doesn't seem to) then it probably isn't important. I think switching to XHTML 1.0 transitional would cause the validation errors to go away but doesn't jQuery 1.3 demand a strict doctype now?
On Jan 20, 2:53 pm, Jörn Zaefferer <joern.zaeffe...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Not really. In one way or the other, you have to make a trade-off - > I'd just ignore the warning, knowing that there really isn't a > problem. > > One way to reduce the problem may be class > compositions:http://docs.jquery.com/Plugins/Validation/Validator/addClassRules#nam... > You'd put together the various "complex" combinations you have into > simpler classes, and use only those, without the curly braces. > > Or, customize the metadata plugin to use other characters for > embedding - no idea whats valid for XHTML 1.1. > > Jörn > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Gordon <gordon.mc...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > We've been making ever more use of the excellent jquery.validate > > plugin on our various sites. In order that we don't have to write a > > validation script for every page with a form we have been using the > > embedded class style of rule definition, and as the rules we need for > > validation have grown more complex we have switched from simple > > classes to using the metadata plugin and the {validate:{rule:value}} > > syntax. > > > This works well, except it leads to problems when trying to validate > > pages with the w3c validator as XHtML 1.1. The validation fails, > > complaining that the curly braces {} are illegal characters in class > > names. This doesn't seem to happen when using an older XHTML > > doctype. > > > Is there a way around this problem so that pages validate in spite of > > the embedded class names?
