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
Andrew Harris wrote:
It is common and often recommended practice to comment javascript
placed in a document.
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 t
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 .
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.
PC-based browsers are "forgiving" becau
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,
David Hucklesby wrote:
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.
Not if you send an explicit XHTML+XML or similar MIME type.
P
--
Patrick H. L
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
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 doe
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.
>
>
>
>
Netscape 2 introduced JavaScript (Livescript) in 1995. Netscape 1 did not
recognize t
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 var
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 thing?
Use external scripts, and you avoid both issues quite elegantly.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___
11 matches
Mail list logo
