That's a good suggestion too... though I'm a little more wary of that than keeping it in the class attribute because I can do more error checking and catching if I'm in complete control of the scripting, where some less experienced dev or even a designer could introduce JS errors if they were editing any JS. I'm envisioning coma misplacement hell... Whereas, if they type in the wrong config class name it might not work like they want, but it won't introduce an error. But I think the script tag is perhaps more flexible and would probably be the choice for a more technical person.
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Do you mean for there to just be a JSON string inside the script tag? I've never used a script tag for anything other than to tell an interpreter to parse and run the script inside, be it _javascript_, php, VB or something like that. If you give it a type of "text/x-jquery-json", would it be executed by default, or would it (in a cross browser way) be ignored by built in parsers, and left for me to do with what I will via some jQuery trickery? I'm curious about this now. That could be very useful if it would be truly ignored and not risk throwing of JS errors in the browser. Has anyone used something like this?
<runs off to test />
On 10/31/06, Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<code>, <div> & full _javascript_ each have problems
Everybody (well almost) likes the idea of putting scripting in <script> tags.
<script> tags don't have to be coded as type="text/_javascript_"m as we
know from vb and other abominations.
let's just use the informal type "text/x-jquery-json" that contains 1 js object
or text/x-jquery-text" for an unquoted string of chars
and others...
WHAT do you think about this?
_______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
