That's why macromedia recommends that all custom tags do a check for executionmode. (if thisTag.executiomode is "start")...
Even had a handy cfeclipse snippet... (which seems to have disappeared now) Blair McKenzie wrote: > That can backfire for basic custom tags - put in a / at the end and > the tag runs twice. > > Blair > > On 12/6/06, *Scott Barnes* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > I will say this though. > > Spend some time coding within FLEX space and you can't but help > close tags as you're so used to being pounded by the compiler on > "YOU DIDN"T CLOSE THAT TAG YOU DUMBO!"... type errors ;) > > I only noticed this before as I was typing, that i even now put > the / on the end of CFSET tags... > > never used to do that... > > funny huh. > > > On 12/7/06, * Mark Stanton* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > XHTML is better yet again because of the increased > > signal-to-noise ratio. > > Rubbish! > > One thing that often gets incorrectly assumed is: > > XHTML = clean semantic markup > HTML = lots of redundant nested tables & other crap > > By looking at the source of 100 random sites you might see this > pattern emerging, but it is not a hard & fast rule. > > I can write HTML 4.01 code that is just as clean and semantic > as any > XHTML out there. Conversely I could write any sort of rubbish > I want, > make sure I put /> at the end of my image tags and then slap on an > XHTML DTD. > > The charter for XHTML was exactly that - take the precise > semantics of > HTML 4.01 and make it XML compliant. So XHTML and HTML 4.01 are > semantically identical. > > The fact that we have a history of people writing crap HTML > and that > the people who go to the trouble of putting an XHTML doc type > on their > files generally care more about there mark up is irrelevant. > > > > On 12/7/06, Tom Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:25:38AM +1000, Scott Barnes wrote: > > > On 12/6/06, Ryan Sabir < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > How many of you are developing sites in XHTML these days? > Is it > > > > worth the extra effort? > > > > > > SOE is supposedly the ducks nuts as to why. Yet, you'd have > to be a > > > moron to expect Google to differentiate between XHTML vs > HTML as in > > > the end, content is the one commodity google and co want > initially. > > > > > > I've read many a debate on it, but in the end the browsers > are smart > > > enough and will continue to evolve to the fact that tag > prediction and > > > differentiating between Style vs Semantically Correct > tagging has > > > probably become a moot point these days and usually > reserved for the > > > HTML purists out there. > > > > I'll throw in my purist $0.02 here, and no doubt regret > having done so > > (I usually do). > > > > I've not yet read an informed point of view that argued that > Google And > > Friends *bias* their scoring systems towards XHTML, or even > valid HTML. > > If you've got a link, I'd appreciate the chuckle. I think > there's > > little doubt though that they would like to extract all > possible content > > from whatever document you publish and classify it as best > they can. > > The argument tends to be more along the lines that an > automatic process > > is *better able* to extract and classify content from valid, > well-formed > > HTML that follows a known set of rules. XHTML is better yet > again > > because of the increased signal-to-noise ratio. Semantically > correct > > markup simply conveys more information about the document > contents. > > > > No doubt there'll be a number of different experiences from > those on > > this list arguing for and against this conjecture. This > seems to be the > > nature of the heavy wizardry of SEO. However my own > intuition is that > > the search engines whose algorithms do not currently use > semantic markup > > to better classify content could only justify this with that > argument > > that there's not enough content out there which is semantically > > organized. You'd have to be a moron to think that they > wouldn't make > > use of this extra information to improve their indexing and > > categorization, in order to improve the effectiveness and > efficiency of > > their product. ;) > > > > -T > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mark Stanton > Gruden Pty Ltd > http://www.gruden.com > > > > > -- > Regards, > Scott Barnes > http://www.mossyblog.com > > > > > > -- Haikal Saadh Applications Programmer ICT Resources, TALSS QUT Kelvin Grove --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
