You should realize that without this attribute the xhtml outputting feature of Struts will be *completely* useless if you use the validator. The javascript will not work surrounded by a CDATA section. An alternative is to hide the js in an html comment. This attribute gives people the choice of how they want to hide the javascript.
Which section of the spec does this violate? I've only found compatibility suggestions. As I understand it a -1 vote means the change can't take place. Is this really your vote on this?
David
From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xhtml javascript hiding methods
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:51:27 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, David Graham wrote:
> Ok, what do you think about a boolean "cdata" attribute for the javascript
> tag? I think this will accomodate everyone's needs.
You mean add a "violate the spec to keep some browsers happy" attribute?
-1.
--
Martin Cooper
>
> What do you mean that no browsers implement xhtml correctly? What are they
> missing? Opera writes its own pages in strict xhtml and their browser
> supports it.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: xhtml javascript hiding methods
> >Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 23:04:45 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, David Graham wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 23:35:27 -0700
> > > From: David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: xhtml javascript hiding methods
> > >
> > > Well, here are the choices as I understand them:
> > >
> > > 1. Use CDATA to hide the javascript and make it completely useless in
> > > current browsers.
> > >
> > > 2. Use a comment to hide the javascript which allows current browsers
> >to
> > > work and xml parsers.
> > >
> > > The xhtml spec does suggest using CDATA but I don't see a reason the
> >comment
> > > method won't work.
> > >
> >
> >If you are using XML-based technologies like XSLT to transform things to
> >create your output pages, the "commented out" text inside a <script>
> >element is going to get dropped on the floor.
> >
> >What I also don't understand is why anybody is worried about generating
> >XHTML markup for the current generation of popular browsers, none of which
> >implement it correctly ... but that's a different issue.
> >
> > > Dave
> >
> >Craig
> >
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >For additional commands, e-mail:
> ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
