R
Rafal 'Raf256' Maj
What is the correct way of put javascript code in XHTML 1 document, in
1) head
2) body
1) head
2) body
W
William Tasso
Rafal said:
linked file - from the head
D
David Dorward
Rafal said:
Its valid in either, it usually only makes sense if you stick it in the head
(becuase it isn't content unless you document.write() and document.write
isn't generally a good idea in XHTML).
L
Louis Somers
I prefer the head because non-supporting browsers are less likely to print
the script on the users screen. If you choose to put it in the body
remember to use the <!-- comments, so non-supporting browsers won't
display the code.
T
Toby A Inkster
Louis said:
You can't use <!-- to hide JavaScript in XHTML: the comment marks will
*really* make it into a comment and it will be ignored by conforming
browsers.
R
Rafal 'Raf256' Maj
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, and - how exacly looks sample JS code in XHTML?
<!DOCTYPE ...>
<html>
<head> ...
<script language="javascript 1.1">
here_some_js_code
</script>
</head>
<body>
....
?
Thanks, and - how exacly looks sample JS code in XHTML?
<!DOCTYPE ...>
<html>
<head> ...
<script language="javascript 1.1">
here_some_js_code
</script>
</head>
<body>
....
?
M
m
No, like:Rafal said:
<script language="JavaScript">
<![CDATA[
.......................your javascript code.............
]]>
</script
The CDATA section prevents your javascript from being
interpreted as part of an XML document proper.
Just do yourself a favor: link to a separate
file and avoid all this.
I don't know why I can never convince beginners
that separate files will save you work instead
of costing; but I theorize that it has something
to do with being awkward on an editor. Put your
CSS and Javascript in separate files _now_-- you'll be
glad you did as your site grows.
R
rf
Louis Somers said:
The only non-javascript that does not simply ignore the entire <script>
element (as it should) was a IIRC certain release of Netscape 3 which only
lasted for a few months anyway. The use of HTML comments inside a <script>
element has been cargo cult from then on
Cheers
Richard.
S
Steve Pugh
Rafal 'Raf256' Maj said:
Yeah, there are so many Netscape 1 browsers still in use...
These days even browsers that con't support JavaScript (or any other
In theory the combination needed to satisfy both XHTML rules and older
tag soup browsers is
<script type="text/javascript">
<!-- --> <![CDATA[ /> <!--
here_some_js_code
// --> <! ]]>
</script>
In practice putting it in an external .js file is a much better idea.
Steve
T
Toby A Inkster
rf said:The only non-javascript that does not simply ignore the entire <script>
element (as it should) was a IIRC certain release of Netscape 3 which only
lasted for a few months anyway. The use of HTML comments inside a <script>
element has been cargo cult from then on
This is the case for <script> elements in the document's <head>, but for
<script> elements in the <body>, a lot of older browsers will display the
script contents.
N
nice.guy.nige
While the city slept said:
Traditionally, javascript has been placed in the head so that any functions
called from the body will have been loaded in. It also makes sense (as
suggested by other posters) to link to a javascript file - especially if
your script is being used on more than one page - as changes to the script
only have to be made on one file.
Cheers,
Nige
--
Nigel Moss.
Email address is not valid. (e-mail address removed). Take the dog out!
http://www.nigenet.org.uk | Boycott E$$O!! http://www.stopesso.com
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!