Re: [WSG] commenting javascript in script tags
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:26:41 +1000, Andrew Harris wrote: 'morning all, It is common and often recommended practice to comment javascript placed in a document. script type=text/javascript language=javascript !-- myVariable = 'woo'; // -- /script Netscape 2 introduced JavaScript (Livescript) in 1995. Netscape 1 did not recognize the SCRIPT tags, and rendered the script on screen. Hence the need, back then, for the HTML comments. Only needed today if you wish to support Netscape 1. While I'm on the topic - what about the whole ![CDATA[ ... ]] thing? Should I be using that? What are the possible consequences of ignoring it like the vast majority of page authors? CDATA sections are required for embedded code only for XHTML. If your file names end in .htm, .html, .php etc. then every browser in the world will treat your XHTML as poorly marked up HTML. XHTML markup works because, unlike XHTML, HTML is required to be forgiving of minor errors and several omissions. If you use a strict XHTML DOCTYPE, you can check out the consequences of various markup options by saving a local copy of your page with a .xhtml extension instead of .html. Opera and Firefox on Windows, at least, will treat this as real XHTML. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] commenting javascript in script tags
Hi, HTML is not required to be forgiving of minor errors and omissions. It's the normal PC based browsers such as IE, Netscape and Mozilla that developed alongside non-standards coding (and Dreamweaver) that had to be forgiving of errors - not HTML per se. A mobile lightweight browser that does not have the computing power to be able detect and try to interpret bad code and hacks will fail to do this. As the number of such devices increases so does the need for standards. That's the reason this forum exists - to design for the future, rather than just what you can get away with in today's browsers. Stuart On Thu, April 26, 2007 7:08 am, David Hucklesby wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:26:41 +1000, Andrew Harris wrote: 'morning all, It is common and often recommended practice to comment javascript placed in a document. script type=text/javascript language=javascript !-- myVariable = 'woo'; // -- /script Netscape 2 introduced JavaScript (Livescript) in 1995. Netscape 1 did not recognize the SCRIPT tags, and rendered the script on screen. Hence the need, back then, for the HTML comments. Only needed today if you wish to support Netscape 1. While I'm on the topic - what about the whole ![CDATA[ ... ]] thing? Should I be using that? What are the possible consequences of ignoring it like the vast majority of page authors? CDATA sections are required for embedded code only for XHTML. If your file names end in .htm, .html, .php etc. then every browser in the world will treat your XHTML as poorly marked up HTML. XHTML markup works because, unlike XHTML, HTML is required to be forgiving of minor errors and several omissions. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Stuart Foulstone. http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk BigEasy Web Design 69 Flockton Court Rockingham Street Sheffield S1 4EB Tel. 07751 413451 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] commenting javascript in script tags
Hi, Could you explain why the script snippet has to be in the head? Will it have some some adverse effect on other pages if in a common external file? If so, why can't it be in an additional .js file, called only by that page? Stuart On Thu, April 26, 2007 2:47 am, Andrew Harris wrote: On 4/26/07, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use external scripts, and you avoid both issues quite elegantly. Thanks Patrick - I should point out that this question is mostly in regards to a case where the bulk of the js is an external script. I just need to occasionally insert a variable relevant to a particular page. So, abhorrent as it might be, the script snippet has to live in the head. -- Andrew Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.woowoowoo.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Stuart Foulstone. http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk BigEasy Web Design 69 Flockton Court Rockingham Street Sheffield S1 4EB Tel. 07751 413451 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] commenting javascript in script tags
On 26/04/2007, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Harris wrote: On 4/26/07, Stuart Foulstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you explain why the script snippet has to be in the head? Will it have some some adverse effect on other pages if in a common external file? If so, why can't it be in an additional .js file, called only by that page? OK, of course, it doesn't HAVE to be in the head, but in this case, it's much more convenient that way. I am rolling out a dreamweaver template that will be used on many thousands of pages. They all reference a central javascript, but occasionally a variable needs to be customised for certain pages. The variable is pretty much unique to the page, so while an external file could be created, it's pointless for one line of code... especially when dealing with a large number of users of varying skill levels - copy and paste code samples into an editable area in the head is nice and easy :-) -- Andrew Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.woowoowoo.com why not markup the variable as html and use dom scripting in the central script to pull out the variable from the individual pages? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] commenting javascript in script tags
Andrew Harris wrote: It is common and often recommended practice to comment javascript placed in a document. script type=text/javascript language=javascript !-- myVariable = 'woo'; // -- /script Don't bother using those comments, they're a waste of time. The reason cited is that 'very old browsers' that do not understand the script tag may print the raw code. How old are we talking? Has anyone ever seen this happen? Can't we safely leave behind what is essentially a hack? Sadly, yes. The browser embedded in a a particular mobile phone (I think it's the Motorolla V3) does not recognise the script element and will render the script on screen if it's not commented out. However, that phone and its browser have far more significant problems and is safe to ignore. Other than that, any browser released since the mid-90's will recognise the script element and hide its content. While I'm on the topic - what about the whole ![CDATA[ ... ]] thing? No. That is for use in XHTML only. In HTML, the content of the script element is parsed differently from other markup. See this article of mine for a more detailed explanation. http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/05/script-comments -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] commenting javascript in script tags
Michael MD wrote: PC-based browsers are forgiving because that's what most users prefer. I don't think most users know enough to even have a preference. The problem is that if many pages don't render properly, they are more likely to blame the browser that the sites. Strictly speaking, most pages shouldn't render properly. Most users have no clue of the sad state of our industry. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] commenting javascript in script tags
Andrew Harris wrote: 'morning all, It is common and often recommended practice to comment javascript placed in a document. ... While I'm on the topic - what about the whole ![CDATA[ ... ]] thing? Use external scripts, and you avoid both issues quite elegantly. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] commenting javascript in script tags
On 4/26/07, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use external scripts, and you avoid both issues quite elegantly. Thanks Patrick - I should point out that this question is mostly in regards to a case where the bulk of the js is an external script. I just need to occasionally insert a variable relevant to a particular page. So, abhorrent as it might be, the script snippet has to live in the head. -- Andrew Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.woowoowoo.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
