You call that line part of an attempt at constructive discussion?
Then do not be astonished by the replies you get for this.
| 3.2 SGML constructs used in HTML
|
| The following sections introduce SGML constructs that are used in
| HTML. [...]
3.2.4 Comments
HTML comments have the following syntax:
<!-- this is a comment -->
<!-- and so is this one,
which occupies more than one line -->
White space is not permitted between the markup declaration open
delimiter("<!") and the comment open delimiter ("--"), but is
permitted between the comment close delimiter ("--") and the
markup declaration close delimiter (">"). A common error is to
include a string of hyphens ("---") within a comment. Authors
should avoid putting two or more adjacent hyphens inside comments.
[...]
Now where is the contradiction
Poster VK: <!-- --> tag is valid HTML comment tag since the first draft
and till now and for forever.
You: Nonsense! `<!' introduces an SGML declaration, `--' starts
and ends a comment within an SGML declaration, and `>' ends
the declaration.
W3 document: HTML comments have the following syntax:
<!-- this is a comment -->
Where you omit conveniently that the HTML Specification says nothing
different than I did, in fact, is says exactly the same as I did, while
it proves VK wrong.
Now what was hard about following that?
`<!-- -->' is _not_ a "comment tag". It is an empty SGML declaration which
is parsed only as such in _PCDATA_ (Parsed Character DATA) content. The
`script' element's content, however, is CDATA in HTML. Therefore, every
standard HTML parser (that is, not a "tag soup" parser) will pass it
as-is to the script engine. The standard for script engine behavior, on
the other hand, is ECMAScript, where `<', `!' and `--' are defined as
_operators_. Occurrences of these operators without the respective
number of operands are a SyntaxError and will break the script.
Neither can it be safely assumed that a "tag soup" parser is used to parse
HTML nor can it be safely assumed that an ECMAScript compliant script
engine (and _all_ currently implemented script engines are ECMAScript
compliant) ignores operators just because they are arranged in a manner
that resembles delimiters of a _markup_ language.
Therefore, and because there is no usable UA left that does not support
(in terms of "recognize, and ignore if not applicable") the respective
feature of HTML 3.2 (which turns 10 next month), it is unnecessary and
potentially harmful to use those delimiters within the HTML `script'
element.
And because in XHTML the content model of the `script' element is PCDATA by
default, using comment delimiters there would most certainly result in an
empty `script' element. Properties that are supposed to be declared
there will not be declared and for example method calls referring to that
commented code will result in a ReferenceError and break the script. (And
if the content was declared CDATA using the respective XML declaration as
e.g. VK mentioned, it would be handled as in HTML, with an even greater
probability of failure as XHTML is an XML application which must adhere
to well-formedness.) Therefore, it is potentially harmful to use comment
delimiters within the `script' element in XHTML, too.
Which leaves us with the conclusion that SGML comment delimiters within
the `script' element are unnecessary and potentially harmful. Which is
in sharp contrast to VK's statement.
Okay...I give up...what are you trying to say here?
You do not own the domain found.com, that is found.com, Inc. (as your
favorite WHOIS service tells you), which will also receive either all
the spam mails directed to your From header "address" or rather the
error messages about the non-existing mail account. Continued use by
you is domain abuse, a form of Network abuse disallowed by section 5
of your NetNews service provider's Posting policy and most certainly
by your Internet Service Provider's Terms of Use.
And if found.com would not be registered, anyone registering it later
will receive either that spam or the error messages, so that would not
make much of a difference.
Nuff said.
PointedEars