On Thursday, "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
] That's a good point.
]
] Michael,
] Would this work???
] "<script" == "<!--" and "</scritpt>" == "-->"
This is what I thought would be a good idea. Arachne not only ignores
"<" contained but also ">", so you have to end with a "-->" (AFAIK,
but the last time I did any testing with this was with 1.2b9 so it
might be changed since then :)
] Also IMO, "<!--" should not require "-->"
How would you know when the end of the comment was?
] The next "<" should be interpreted correctly even if "-->" is not found.
Sometimes its useful to comment out largeish blocks of code:
<!--
<a href="blah.htm">blah</a>
-->
If you didn't want "blah" to appear at all...
AFAICT the "big browsers" only end the comment like:
<!-- propper comment -->
<!-- dont see this > do see this
<!-- < dont see this > dont see this > do see this
<!-- <<<>> still a comment <<>>> still a comment > not a comment
but it would be required by the W3C to include the "-->".
I was trying out different comments, different parts appeared in
different browsers...
--
| .~. | Hoody has the hots for whats in the box with the dots!
| /V\ | http://hoody.virtualave.net updated 14 Jan 2000
| // \\ | http://hoody.penguinpowered.com when I'm online
| /( )\ | ICQ: five oh one seven five one seven oh
| ^`~'^ | Carpe Aptenodytes!
Does it take an entomologist to recognize a computer bug?
| C607EUW | "We apologise for the inconvenience"
