W3C xhtml 1.0 transitional problem

I think that the use of the treeview control built on asp.net 2.0 makes the
page non xhtml 1.0 transitional compliant, in fact this control renders this
html:

<script>
<!--
function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) {
WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,T reeView_ProcessNodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNo deData,false);
}
// -->
</script
as you can see the script tag misses the type attribute as showed by using
the w3c validator at http://validator.w3.org/check

Spa.-In article <#V$aSrGOGHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, Spartaco
<boh@.boh.voh> writes
>I think that the use of the treeview control built on asp.net 2.0 makes the
>page non xhtml 1.0 transitional compliant, in fact this control renders this
>html:
><script>
><!--
> function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) {
>WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,T reeView_ProcessNodeDat
>a,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false);
> }
>// -->
></script>
>as you can see the script tag misses the type attribute as showed by using
>the w3c validator at http://validator.w3.org/check

That shouldn't make it fail if you have a transitional doctype. It would
make it fail with a strict doctype though. I was having this exact
problem, thinking that the framework emitted Strict, and then when I
realised it emitted transitional, I changed the doctype and this error
went away.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
In article <rSlnmNj0fGBEFwno@.nospamthankyou.spam>, Alan Silver
<alan-silver@.nospam.thanx.invalid> writes
>That shouldn't make it fail if you have a transitional doctype. It
>would make it fail with a strict doctype though. I was having this
>exact problem, thinking that the framework emitted Strict, and then
>when I realised it emitted transitional, I changed the doctype and this
>error went away.

My comment above is of course is complete and utter rubbish. It is
indeed invalid XHTML, even with a Transitional doctype, and I submitted
this very point as a bug on the 13th Feb 06. You can see the lack of
response from MS at...

http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...71-9da936759eca

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)