As a reference, the same fix that Christophe presented is shown near the top of this page: http://javascript.crockford.com/script.html
The quote from the page reads: "The script should not contain the sequence </ because it could be confused with the </script>. Inserting a backslash between < and / in strings avoids the problem. <\/ The backslash will be ignored by the JavaScript compiler. " Is it acceptable to embed plain text closing tags into String and RegExp objects as long as the script is not embedded inline? I'm making the assumption that the script functions in its existing form only because the HTML parser isn't involved when you load the script externally. I would think it would be better form to use a non- limiting syntax for the script even if the act of embedding the text into a single document is unappealing and poses no immediately obvious benefit beyond making it self contained. It also isn't code that you could reuse in an inline script if you wanted (as an arbitrary and not entirely plausible example) to override a portion of the script inline rather than altering the files themselves. Out of curiosity, why would the fix not go into the main distribution? - Ryan Schuft --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
