We should let users decide which method they choose to hide the javascript from xml parsers based on their needs.
David
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:44:28 -0800 (PST)
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, David Graham wrote:
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:35:48 -0700
> From: David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: xhtml javascript hiding methods
>
> My mail doesn't seem to be sending but I'll try anyway...
>
> The tags do not output the language script attribute when xhtml is enabled.
> Also, we're not generating incorrect xhtml. You can have the choice of how
> to hide the js from an xml parser. Either use a comment or a CDATA section.
>
From the XML perspective, using comments is hopelessly broken -- any XML
preprocessing or postprocessing you do to the source of a page (say,
with a Filter) will cause the script contentes to disappear.
The XHTML 1.0 spec is at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
and Section 4.8 documents that you're supposed to use CDATA.
Regarding the JavaScript code generated by the validator, the right answer
is to use external script pages -- like we do in the example webapp.
> David
>
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 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]>
