Thanks,
David
From: "Raible, Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Struts Users Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: xhtml javascript WAS: html:text tags are slightly broken.
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:46:00 -0700
Probably best to follow the specs then. My comment was based on experience.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: xhtml javascript WAS: html:text tags are slightly broken.
I don't think that works. I'm basing this on what I've read here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.8
and here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_4
David
>From: "Raible, Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'Struts Users Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: xhtml javascript WAS: html:text tags are slightly broken.
>Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:23:32 -0700
>
>For the Javascript, I think that Struts should use the following syntax for
>all javascript rendering:
>
><script type="text/javascript">
><!--
>
>//-->
></script>
>
>To my knowledge, this is XHTML* compliant and works in older browsers.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Childers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:17 AM
>To: Struts Users Mailing List
>Subject: RE: xhtml javascript WAS: html:text tags are slightly broken.
>
>
>
>
> > I'm thinking about adding a boolean attribute to the
> > javascript tag called xhtmlStrict. If set to true,
> > it would use a CDATA section; if false it wouldn't.
> > The default would be false to allow maximum useability
> > while still allowing you to conform to xhtml.
> >
> > Thoughts on the attribute name/idea in general are welcome.
> >
> > David
> >
>
>Well, if the only behavioral difference caused by the xhtmlStrict attribute
>is to change the way the <javascript> section is displayed, I would change
>the name to "javascriptCdata" or something similar. The name xhtmlStrict
>indicates to me that there will be broader changes made to the generated
>XHTML than just wrapping the script in CDATA.
>
>Honestly, I'm wondering if there shouldn't be a <html:script> tag for cases
>like this, which generates your <script> tags. I don't know what (if
>anything) that might break. I imagine that this might cause problems with
>the Validator, but I'm not entirely sure.
>
>-= J
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For additional commands, e-mail:
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For additional commands, e-mail:
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
