Thanks for the feedback, judebert. Hopefully I posted this information in the right sub-forum, I'm always confused where certain information should go as most people don't follow the proper guidelines anyway. It's scary to think something might go unseen.
I've updated my blog post with some usage information, and a short example of how the script looks/works. I can't believe I didn't do that in the first place.
As far as the "name" problem is concerned. "Could it be done?" Yes. "Should it be done?" I'm not so sure about that. Although I could most likely modify the original package to work differently so that standards compliancy would be left intact, it would end up resulting in a (very) minor fork of the original author's script, which would make upkeep more difficult (not much, but enough to cause problems if any old Joe wanted to update their version if I was too slow to do so). I'd much prefer to convince the author to make changes to the core JS codes to allow for compliancy. I don't know how easy convincing him to make changes would be, however.
As for the CSS modifications I made to the original package, I've posted those changes back to the Google Code project's Issue Tracker, so hopefully he'll take some, if not all, of the suggested changes there. Maybe I can work on getting the core JS files to also work differently and be standards compliant.
...anyone else have any comments, questions, or critiques?
My own suggestion:
Get it to work in the Administrator's Preview page.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
They say, "Practice makes perfect," yet they also say, "Nobody's perfect." I don't get it.