cdata and javascript

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jeff, Jan 26, 2008.

  1. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.

    I thought I could do this:

    <script type="text/javascript">
    // <![CDATA[

    // ]]>
    </script>

    But that doesn't work.

    Should I be using XHTML to do this?

    Jeff
     
    Jeff, Jan 26, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Jan 26, 3:54 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    > I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.


    Why?
     
    Travis Newbury, Jan 26, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > On Jan 26, 3:54 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    >> I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.

    >
    > Why?



    Nice how you snipped the question.

    Why not? If I want to validate the page as I'm working on it I won't
    have to wade through the 47 errors the validator thinks it sees in the
    javascript where I'm assembling bits of html.

    Did you think your response was going to be helpful?

    Jeff
     
    Jeff, Jan 26, 2008
    #3
  4. Jeff

    I V Guest

    On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:49:13 -0500, Jeff wrote:
    > Why not? If I want to validate the page as I'm working on it I won't
    > have to wade through the 47 errors the validator thinks it sees in the
    > javascript where I'm assembling bits of html.


    What validator are you using? In HTML (but not XHTML), the content of a
    script element is already considered CDATA, so the validator shouldn't
    complain about HTML fragments in the script. I've just checked the W3C's
    validator and it thinks this is valid, for instance:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>I AM YOUR DOCUMENT TITLE REPLACE ME</title>
    <script type="text/javascript">
    document.write('<foobar>');
    </script>
    </head>
    <body>
    <p>
    Something in the body.
    </p>
    </body>
    </html>
     
    I V, Jan 26, 2008
    #4
  5. Jeff

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jan 26, 2:54 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    > I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.
    >
    > I thought I could do this:
    >
    > <script type="text/javascript">
    > // <![CDATA[
    >
    > // ]]>
    > </script>
    >
    > But that doesn't work.
    >
    > Should I be using XHTML to do this?


    You are using at least some xhtml if you are using the CDATA comments.
    CDATA is part of xml that may be used in xhtml. you would be allowed
    to use it only if your page has an xhtml Doctype. If you get a lot of
    errors at the W3C validator in the script that are xml errors in
    xhtml, but not errors in html, you may use CDATA comments to hide the
    script from an xhtml page, and a page then will validate at the W3C
    with the proper xhtml Doctype. You can avoid this whole problem by
    using an external script rather than one on the main page. There are a
    few things in script on even an html page that must be avoided to
    prevent validation errors. These are discussed at the w3c, and if you
    make such an error, the validator in the most complete mode often will
    tell you where to find information about the error. Some such errors
    cause no harm and mainly are formal errors. However some such errors
    may cause problems on some browsers and should be avoided.

    The only way that anyone can help you in detail is if you post a url
    for a page having the problem. Script can be a bit tricky unless you
    use it a lot.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 26, 2008
    #5
  6. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    I V wrote:
    > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:49:13 -0500, Jeff wrote:
    >> Why not? If I want to validate the page as I'm working on it I won't
    >> have to wade through the 47 errors the validator thinks it sees in the
    >> javascript where I'm assembling bits of html.

    >
    > What validator are you using? In HTML (but not XHTML), the content of a
    > script element is already considered CDATA, so the validator shouldn't
    > complain about HTML fragments in the script. I've just checked the W3C's
    > validator and it thinks this is valid, for instance:


    The W3C's.

    What happens is that I'm concatenating strings (content += ...) and
    it's complaining about closing tags that aren't open (the are opened on
    another line). I didn't expect that, I validated it because of the
    problem in the next thread and I was surprised to see all that. I've
    never used CDATA so I though it was time to learn. I was wrong!

    I think I'll just take cwdjrxyz'z advice and ignore them for now. It
    will of course wind up in an external file when I get done with writing it.

    Thanks,
    Jeff
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    > <html>
    > <head>
    > <title>I AM YOUR DOCUMENT TITLE REPLACE ME</title>
    > <script type="text/javascript">
    > document.write('<foobar>');
    > </script>
    > </head>
    > <body>
    > <p>
    > Something in the body.
    > </p>
    > </body>
    > </html>
     
    Jeff, Jan 26, 2008
    #6
  7. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > On Jan 26, 2:54 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    >> I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.
    >>
    >> I thought I could do this:
    >>
    >> <script type="text/javascript">
    >> // <![CDATA[
    >>
    >> // ]]>
    >> </script>
    >>
    >> But that doesn't work.
    >>
    >> Should I be using XHTML to do this?

    >
    > You are using at least some xhtml if you are using the CDATA comments.
    > CDATA is part of xml that may be used in xhtml. you would be allowed
    > to use it only if your page has an xhtml Doctype. If you get a lot of
    > errors at the W3C validator in the script that are xml errors in
    > xhtml, but not errors in html, you may use CDATA comments to hide the
    > script from an xhtml page, and a page then will validate at the W3C
    > with the proper xhtml Doctype.


    Thanks. I understand this now. I've never used either xhtml doctypes and
    cdata. I thought it may have been time to learn them. Or not!

    You can avoid this whole problem by
    > using an external script rather than one on the main page.


    I'll do that later. I think that's a good plan anyways!

    There are a
    > few things in script on even an html page that must be avoided to
    > prevent validation errors. These are discussed at the w3c, and if you
    > make such an error,


    You know, I read through that already and they just took me around in a
    circle!

    the validator in the most complete mode often will
    > tell you where to find information about the error. Some such errors
    > cause no harm and mainly are formal errors. However some such errors
    > may cause problems on some browsers and should be avoided.
    >
    > The only way that anyone can help you in detail is if you post a url
    > for a page having the problem. Script can be a bit tricky unless you
    > use it a lot.


    It's an odd thing, but here you are:

    <URL: http://websiterepairguru.com/colorpicker_2.htm>

    I don't expect you to hack through that, but if you have issues
    figuring out color schemes like I do, it may be interesting... There's
    some bugs (see next thread) when I added the strict doctype.

    I wrote the left part of that back in '99 and I'm just trying to get
    it up to date.

    Thanks,
    Jeff

    >
     
    Jeff, Jan 26, 2008
    #7
  8. On Jan 26, 4:49 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    > > Why?

    > Nice how you snipped the question.
    > Why not? If I want to validate the page as I'm working on it I won't
    > have to wade through the 47 errors the validator thinks it sees in the
    > javascript where I'm assembling bits of html.
    > Did you think your response was going to be helpful


    Well since validation is a tool rather than a goal, I think my answer
    was completely helpful.
     
    Travis Newbury, Jan 26, 2008
    #8
  9. Jeff

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jan 26, 4:55 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    > I V wrote:
    > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:49:13 -0500, Jeff wrote:
    > >> Why not? If I want to validate the page as I'm working on it I won't
    > >> have to wade through the 47 errors the validator thinks it sees in the
    > >> javascript where I'm assembling bits of html.

    >
    > > What validator are you using? In HTML (but not XHTML), the content of a
    > > script element is already considered CDATA, so the validator shouldn't
    > > complain about HTML fragments in the script. I've just checked the W3C's
    > > validator and it thinks this is valid, for instance:

    >
    > The W3C's.
    >
    > What happens is that I'm concatenating strings (content += ...) and
    > it's complaining about closing tags that aren't open (the are opened on
    > another line). I didn't expect that, I validated it because of the
    > problem in the next thread and I was surprised to see all that. I've
    > never used CDATA so I though it was time to learn. I was wrong!
    >
    > I think I'll just take cwdjrxyz'z advice and ignore them for now. It
    > will of course wind up in an external file when I get done with writing it.


    See http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html and read the
    section in it concerning javascript errors. One of the most common
    validation errors is not backslashing when using a document.write
    within a javascript. This reference discusses why this is required.
    However the script will work on many, if not most, browsers in current
    use if you neglect to do so.


    > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    > > <html>
    > > <head>
    > > <title>I AM YOUR DOCUMENT TITLE REPLACE ME</title>
    > > <script type="text/javascript">
    > > document.write('<foobar>');
    > > </script>
    > > </head>
    > > <body>
    > > <p>
    > > Something in the body.
    > > </p>
    > > </body>
    > > </html>
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 27, 2008
    #9
  10. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > On Jan 26, 4:55 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    >> I V wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:49:13 -0500, Jeff wrote:
    >>>> Why not? If I want to validate the page as I'm working on it I won't
    >>>> have to wade through the 47 errors the validator thinks it sees in the
    >>>> javascript where I'm assembling bits of html.
    >>> What validator are you using? In HTML (but not XHTML), the content of a
    >>> script element is already considered CDATA, so the validator shouldn't
    >>> complain about HTML fragments in the script. I've just checked the W3C's
    >>> validator and it thinks this is valid, for instance:

    >> The W3C's.
    >>
    >> What happens is that I'm concatenating strings (content += ...) and
    >> it's complaining about closing tags that aren't open (the are opened on
    >> another line). I didn't expect that, I validated it because of the
    >> problem in the next thread and I was surprised to see all that. I've
    >> never used CDATA so I though it was time to learn. I was wrong!
    >>
    >> I think I'll just take cwdjrxyz'z advice and ignore them for now. It
    >> will of course wind up in an external file when I get done with writing it.

    >
    > See http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html and read the
    > section in it concerning javascript errors. One of the most common
    > validation errors is not backslashing when using a document.write
    > within a javascript.


    Thanks, that explains that exactly.


    This reference discusses why this is required.
    > However the script will work on many, if not most, browsers in current
    > use if you neglect to do so.



    I find that interesting. Do you know of any specific examples where
    the browser and not the validator would complain? It's always nice to
    catch problems rather than vice versa.

    Jeff
    >
    >
    >>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    >>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    >>> <html>
    >>> <head>
    >>> <title>I AM YOUR DOCUMENT TITLE REPLACE ME</title>
    >>> <script type="text/javascript">
    >>> document.write('<foobar>');
    >>> </script>
    >>> </head>
    >>> <body>
    >>> <p>
    >>> Something in the body.
    >>> </p>
    >>> </body>
    >>> </html>

    >
     
    Jeff, Jan 27, 2008
    #10
  11. Scripsit Jeff:

    > I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.


    Consider learning what a validator is before trying to fool it.

    Then read the validator's FAQ list when you run into problems.

    And if you use JavaScript, just put any bulky code into an external
    file, and any validation issues with it vanish in a puff of logic.

    > Should I be using XHTML [...]?


    No, especially since you asked.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jan 27, 2008
    #11
  12. Jeff

    A-OK-SITE Guest

    On Jan 27, 3:46 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    > Scripsit Jeff:
    >
    > > I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.

    >
    > Consider learning what a validator is before trying to fool it.
    >
    > Then read the validator's FAQ list when you run into problems.
    >
    > And if you use JavaScript, just put any bulky code into an external
    > file, and any validation issues with it vanish in a puff of logic.
    >
    > > Should I be using XHTML [...]?

    >
    > No, especially since you asked.
    >
    > --
    > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


    Jeff,

    Everybody seems to have a preference as to which doc type they prefer
    html or xhtml and most of it has no basis in reality. It is like the
    old Ford vs Chevy argument in which both are good but for some reason
    people just seem to like one more than the other.

    XHTML is a cleaner code with features like self-closing tags (et al).
    The XHTML is almost always served and interpreted as HTML with the
    main difference being the syntax only. The new HTML 5.0 and XHTML 2.0
    that is soon to be released is bringing the two types even closer
    together based on preliminary information. It is also somewhat like
    the difference between strict and transitional and both will render
    the page the same with only minute differences in the way the page is
    coded.

    So in summary pick the language you feel the most comfortable with and
    use it. They are both valid and fully functional, and all modern
    browsers will render the code just fine. It is just my humble opinion
    but I prefer XHTML, but I always preferred a Chevy and a Budweiser
    too.

    Daniel

    http://a-ok-site.com
     
    A-OK-SITE, Jan 27, 2008
    #12
  13. Jeff

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, A-OK-SITE <> wrote:
    > On Jan 27, 3:46 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Scripsit Jeff:

    >
    > > > I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.

    >
    > > Consider learning what a validator is before trying to fool it.

    >
    > > Then read the validator's FAQ list when you run into problems.

    >
    > > And if you use JavaScript, just put any bulky code into an external
    > > file, and any validation issues with it vanish in a puff of logic.

    >
    > > > Should I be using XHTML [...]?

    >
    > > No, especially since you asked.

    >
    > > --
    > > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

    >
    > Jeff,
    >
    > Everybody seems to have a preference as to which doc type they prefer
    > html or xhtml and most of it has no basis in reality. It is like the
    > old Ford vs Chevy argument in which both are good but for some reason
    > people just seem to like one more than the other.
    >
    > XHTML is a cleaner code with features like self-closing tags (et al).
    > The XHTML is almost always served and interpreted as HTML with the
    > main difference being the syntax only. The new HTML 5.0 and XHTML 2.0
    > that is soon to be released is bringing the two types even closer
    > together based on preliminary information. It is also somewhat like
    > the difference between strict and transitional and both will render
    > the page the same with only minute differences in the way the page is
    > coded.
    >
    > So in summary pick the language you feel the most comfortable with and
    > use it. They are both valid and fully functional, and all modern
    > browsers will render the code just fine. It is just my humble opinion
    > but I prefer XHTML, but I always preferred a Chevy and a Budweiser
    > too.


    Unfortunately no IE browser, including IE7, can render any xhtml if it
    is served properly as mime type application/xhtml+xml. All you get is
    an error message. Many mis-serve xhtml as text/html and use an
    extension .html. Although this often works for IE browsers, there is
    no point in writing xhtml code in the first place if you are not going
    to serve it as xhtml. Since the extension .html usually is associated
    with the mime type for text/html on the server, you have to use
    another extension, such as .xhtml, and assign it to the xhtml mime
    type application/xhtml+xml on the server. Then when you serve xhtml
    properly, in addition to IE browsers not working, other modern
    browsers such as Firefox, Opera, Seamonkey, and Safari for Windows
    will handle true xhtml. However then the code is parsed as xml. A xml
    parser must be much more strict than a html parser. The least little
    mistake, such as a single unclosed tag, gives a fatal parse error that
    results in an error message rather than a view of the page, which
    often works with little problem in html.

    If you want to serve true xhtml, you have to provide IE html by using
    separate pages, header/browser exchange and rewriting the page for
    html for browsers that do not indicate they can handle the mime type
    for xhtml, etc. The main reason for all of this trouble is that
    Microsoft can not or will not write their browsers to handle modern
    xhtml properly. Hopefully, now that Vista is out after much delay,
    Microsoft will have time to bring their browser up to date. IE7 was
    just a minor change from IE6. It did correct some bugs and might be a
    bit more secure. However it was outmoded at the moment it was
    released.

    The important thing to remember is that you have xhtml only if both
    the code is written in xhtml and it is served as application/xhtml+xml
    - not text/html. The W3C validator only validates the code as html or
    xhtml. It does not validate that the code is being served properly.
    However, in the most detailed setting of the validator, it will tell
    you if the page is being served as text/html or application/xhtml+xml.
    You will find very few pages being served properly as xhtml when you
    check them.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 28, 2008
    #13
  14. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, A-OK-SITE <> wrote:
    >> On Jan 27, 3:46 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Scripsit Jeff:
    >>>> I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.
    >>> Consider learning what a validator is before trying to fool it.
    >>> Then read the validator's FAQ list when you run into problems.
    >>> And if you use JavaScript, just put any bulky code into an external
    >>> file, and any validation issues with it vanish in a puff of logic.
    >>>> Should I be using XHTML [...]?
    >>> No, especially since you asked.
    >>> --
    >>> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

    >> Jeff,
    >>
    >> Everybody seems to have a preference as to which doc type they prefer
    >> html or xhtml and most of it has no basis in reality. It is like the
    >> old Ford vs Chevy argument in which both are good but for some reason
    >> people just seem to like one more than the other.
    >>
    >> XHTML is a cleaner code with features like self-closing tags (et al).
    >> The XHTML is almost always served and interpreted as HTML with the
    >> main difference being the syntax only. The new HTML 5.0 and XHTML 2.0
    >> that is soon to be released is bringing the two types even closer
    >> together based on preliminary information. It is also somewhat like
    >> the difference between strict and transitional and both will render
    >> the page the same with only minute differences in the way the page is
    >> coded.
    >>
    >> So in summary pick the language you feel the most comfortable with and
    >> use it. They are both valid and fully functional, and all modern
    >> browsers will render the code just fine. It is just my humble opinion
    >> but I prefer XHTML, but I always preferred a Chevy and a Budweiser
    >> too.

    >
    > Unfortunately no IE browser, including IE7, can render any xhtml if it
    > is served properly as mime type application/xhtml+xml. All you get is
    > an error message. Many mis-serve xhtml as text/html and use an
    > extension .html. Although this often works for IE browsers, there is
    > no point in writing xhtml code in the first place if you are not going
    > to serve it as xhtml.


    Just what is the advantage of serving xhtml+xml? The only thing I see is
    something about being able to write objects differently. Or is this
    about being able to add xml with an xslt stylesheet? If so, I do not see
    that anywhere. The only "trick" I see is the object media thing: <p
    src="some_image">something else</a>.

    Actually from a quick look through the w3C and some other googling all
    I see is syntax examples. And the syntax is not complicated! Perhaps a
    working xhtml example that does something new.

    Otherwise it seems like nothing but trouble. With much of the web
    being driven by CMS if the parser doesn't grok the crap the author puts
    in you wind up with a page more broken than it should be.

    I don't have a problem with writing HTML XHTMLish, I even like the much
    maligned <br />.

    Jeff


    Since the extension .html usually is associated
    > with the mime type for text/html on the server, you have to use
    > another extension, such as .xhtml, and assign it to the xhtml mime
    > type application/xhtml+xml on the server. Then when you serve xhtml
    > properly, in addition to IE browsers not working, other modern
    > browsers such as Firefox, Opera, Seamonkey, and Safari for Windows
    > will handle true xhtml. However then the code is parsed as xml. A xml
    > parser must be much more strict than a html parser. The least little
    > mistake, such as a single unclosed tag, gives a fatal parse error that
    > results in an error message rather than a view of the page, which
    > often works with little problem in html.
    >
    > If you want to serve true xhtml, you have to provide IE html by using
    > separate pages, header/browser exchange and rewriting the page for
    > html for browsers that do not indicate they can handle the mime type
    > for xhtml, etc. The main reason for all of this trouble is that
    > Microsoft can not or will not write their browsers to handle modern
    > xhtml properly. Hopefully, now that Vista is out after much delay,
    > Microsoft will have time to bring their browser up to date. IE7 was
    > just a minor change from IE6. It did correct some bugs and might be a
    > bit more secure. However it was outmoded at the moment it was
    > released.
    >
    > The important thing to remember is that you have xhtml only if both
    > the code is written in xhtml and it is served as application/xhtml+xml
    > - not text/html. The W3C validator only validates the code as html or
    > xhtml. It does not validate that the code is being served properly.
    > However, in the most detailed setting of the validator, it will tell
    > you if the page is being served as text/html or application/xhtml+xml.
    > You will find very few pages being served properly as xhtml when you
    > check them.
     
    Jeff, Jan 28, 2008
    #14
  15. Jeff

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 28 Jan, 14:46, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:

    > I don't have a problem with writing HTML XHTMLish, I even like the much
    > maligned <br />.


    Why? That's just plain wrong.
     
    Andy Dingley, Jan 28, 2008
    #15
  16. Jeff

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 28 Jan, 14:46, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:

    > Just what is the advantage of serving xhtml+xml?


    Compared to what? Compared to serving XHTML 1.0 as text//html, it is
    a positive disadvantage for IE (it fails) and is a server-side
    nuisance for doing it "properly" with other browsers, yet still has no
    concrete advantage.

    Compared to HTML (i.e. switching between "best practice" HTML and
    "best practice" XHTML), again it's some complexity for no discernible
    purpose.

    There just isn't any _point_ to XHTML on the web.
     
    Andy Dingley, Jan 28, 2008
    #16
  17. Jeff

    A-OK-SITE Guest

    On Jan 28, 8:46 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > > On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, A-OK-SITE <> wrote:
    > >> On Jan 27, 3:46 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Scripsit Jeff:
    > >>>> I have a bit of javascript that I'd like to hide from the validator.
    > >>> Consider learning what a validator is before trying to fool it.
    > >>> Then read the validator's FAQ list when you run into problems.
    > >>> And if you use JavaScript, just put any bulky code into an external
    > >>> file, and any validation issues with it vanish in a puff of logic.
    > >>>> Should I be using XHTML [...]?
    > >>> No, especially since you asked.
    > >>> --
    > >>> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    > >> Jeff,

    >
    > >> Everybody seems to have a preference as to which doc type they prefer
    > >> html or xhtml and most of it has no basis in reality. It is like the
    > >> old Ford vs Chevy argument in which both are good but for some reason
    > >> people just seem to like one more than the other.

    >
    > >> XHTML is a cleaner code with features like self-closing tags (et al).
    > >> The XHTML is almost always served and interpreted as HTML with the
    > >> main difference being the syntax only. The new HTML 5.0 and XHTML 2.0
    > >> that is soon to be released is bringing the two types even closer
    > >> together based on preliminary information. It is also somewhat like
    > >> the difference between strict and transitional and both will render
    > >> the page the same with only minute differences in the way the page is
    > >> coded.

    >
    > >> So in summary pick the language you feel the most comfortable with and
    > >> use it. They are both valid and fully functional, and all modern
    > >> browsers will render the code just fine. It is just my humble opinion
    > >> but I prefer XHTML, but I always preferred a Chevy and a Budweiser
    > >> too.

    >
    > > Unfortunately no IE browser, including IE7, can render any xhtml if it
    > > is served properly as mime type application/xhtml+xml. All you get is
    > > an error message. Many mis-serve xhtml as text/html and use an
    > > extension .html. Although this often works for IE browsers, there is
    > > no point in writing xhtml code in the first place if you are not going
    > > to serve it as xhtml.

    >
    > Just what is the advantage of serving xhtml+xml? The only thing I see is
    > something about being able to write objects differently. Or is this
    > about being able to add xml with an xslt stylesheet? If so, I do not see
    > that anywhere. The only "trick" I see is the object media thing: <p
    > src="some_image">something else</a>.
    >
    > Actually from a quick look through the w3C and some other googling all
    > I see is syntax examples. And the syntax is not complicated! Perhaps a
    > working xhtml example that does something new.
    >
    > Otherwise it seems like nothing but trouble. With much of the web
    > being driven by CMS if the parser doesn't grok the crap the author puts
    > in you wind up with a page more broken than it should be.
    >
    > I don't have a problem with writing HTML XHTMLish, I even like the much
    > maligned <br />.
    >
    > Jeff
    >
    > Since the extension .html usually is associated
    >
    > > with the mime type for text/html on the server, you have to use
    > > another extension, such as .xhtml, and assign it to the xhtml mime
    > > type application/xhtml+xml on the server. Then when you serve xhtml
    > > properly, in addition to IE browsers not working, other modern
    > > browsers such as Firefox, Opera, Seamonkey, and Safari for Windows
    > > will handle true xhtml. However then the code is parsed as xml. A xml
    > > parser must be much more strict than a html parser. The least little
    > > mistake, such as a single unclosed tag, gives a fatal parse error that
    > > results in an error message rather than a view of the page, which
    > > often works with little problem in html.

    >
    > > If you want to serve true xhtml, you have to provide IE html by using
    > > separate pages, header/browser exchange and rewriting the page for
    > > html for browsers that do not indicate they can handle the mime type
    > > for xhtml, etc. The main reason for all of this trouble is that
    > > Microsoft can not or will not write their browsers to handle modern
    > > xhtml properly. Hopefully, now that Vista is out after much delay,
    > > Microsoft will have time to bring their browser up to date. IE7 was
    > > just a minor change from IE6. It did correct some bugs and might be a
    > > bit more secure. However it was outmoded at the moment it was
    > > released.

    >
    > > The important thing to remember is that you have xhtml only if both
    > > the code is written in xhtml and it is served as application/xhtml+xml
    > > - not text/html. The W3C validator only validates the code as html or
    > > xhtml. It does not validate that the code is being served properly.
    > > However, in the most detailed setting of the validator, it will tell
    > > you if the page is being served as text/html or application/xhtml+xml.
    > > You will find very few pages being served properly as xhtml when you
    > > check them.


    Jeff,

    See what I was talking about it is the same old arguments with no
    basis in reality (see previous post). A large percent of
    knowledgeable web designers use XHTML and serve it as HTML with no
    problems. I find that most of the people who object to XHTML don't
    want to spend the time learning a new process for coding pages. XHTML
    uses modern practices like external style sheets and box design for
    layouts instead of tables and inline formatting. There is absolutely
    no doubt that XHTML provides a much cleaner and uncluttered page.
    However, to each their own.

    Daniel

    http://a-ok-site.com
     
    A-OK-SITE, Jan 28, 2008
    #17
  18. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On 28 Jan, 14:46, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    >
    >> I don't have a problem with writing HTML XHTMLish, I even like the much
    >> maligned <br />.

    >
    > Why? That's just plain wrong.


    Why? It's a self closing tag and it works in every browser. The trend
    is toward closing every tag you open.

    Jeff
     
    Jeff, Jan 28, 2008
    #18
  19. Jeff

    A-OK-SITE Guest

    On Jan 28, 10:02 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
    > Andy Dingley wrote:
    > > On 28 Jan, 14:46, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:

    >
    > >> I don't have a problem with writing HTML XHTMLish, I even like the much
    > >> maligned <br />.

    >
    > > Why? That's just plain wrong.

    >
    > Why? It's a self closing tag and it works in every browser. The trend
    > is toward closing every tag you open.
    >
    > Jeff


    It's not wrong they just don't like it, and you are right that is the
    trend.

    Daniel
     
    A-OK-SITE, Jan 28, 2008
    #19
  20. Jeff

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 28 Jan, 16:02, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:

    > Why? It's a self closing tag and it works in every browser.


    Under HTML (i.e. SGML) <br> is defined as EMPTY in the DTD, so it's
    always a "self-closing" element from a single start tag, no matter
    what.


    > The trend is toward closing every tag you open.


    You mean "element", not tag. Secondly, although this observation might
    be correct, it's not necessary behaviour outside of SGML. For elements
    with content (e.g. <p>) then it's commendable, albeit largely
    unnecessary (it can make things clearer to the humans though). However
    for <br> it's simply wrong. It's not _harmful_ (this is what permits
    Appendix C to work), but it's not something to recommend.
     
    Andy Dingley, Jan 28, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Davison
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    636
    Hal Rosser
    Jul 7, 2004
  2. Leila
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,697
    Leila Allen
    Aug 12, 2004
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    798
    Joe Kesselman
    Mar 6, 2006
  4. Max
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    890
  5. Leila

    CDATA within Javascript function

    Leila, Aug 12, 2004, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    138
    Martin Honnen
    Aug 12, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page