Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

CDATA on Inline Scripts

Expand Messages
  • Paul
    Hey all, I currently have code that looks like the following: // Since I m doing this in xhtml, my
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 15 8:04 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey all,

      I currently have code that looks like the following:

      <script type="text/javascript">
      //<![CDATA[
      ...
      //]]>
      </script>

      Since I'm doing this in xhtml, my IDE likes that tag being there,
      otherwise it blows up on typical xml characters like [<]. However,
      JSLint is returning a statement such as the following:

      Error:

      Problem at line 33 character 7: Dangerous comment.

      //<![CDATA[

      Problem at line 46 character 7: Dangerous comment.

      //]]>

      Is there a better way to do this that I should be doing? Otherwise is
      there an option to allow this type of notation?

      Thanks for your time.
    • Douglas Crockford
      ... XHTML is a fiction. If it were real, you wouldn t need to hide the hideous CDATA overhead behind JavaScript comments. You would do better to write your
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 15 4:08 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <DWTebriel@...> wrote:
        > I currently have code that looks like the following:
        >
        > <script type="text/javascript">
        > //<![CDATA[
        > ...
        > //]]>
        > </script>
        >
        > Since I'm doing this in xhtml, my IDE likes that tag being there,
        > otherwise it blows up on typical xml characters like [<]. However,
        > JSLint is returning a statement such as the following:

        XHTML is a fiction. If it were real, you wouldn't need to hide the
        hideous CDATA overhead behind JavaScript comments. You would do better
        to write your code like this:

        <script>
        ....
        </script>

        It is smaller, cleaner, faster.

        Even better, do not put any script in HTML files. Use script src.
        Separate the markup from the behavior. This tends to lead to better
        designs. It also can provide better performance because of
        opportunities for minification, compression, and caching.
      • Paul
        ... Hey thanks for the reply! For the browsers that support a content-type of application/xml+xhtml , is there any advantage for JavaScript when working with
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 19 9:24 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <DWTebriel@> wrote:
          > > I currently have code that looks like the following:
          > >
          > > <script type="text/javascript">
          > > //<![CDATA[
          > > ...
          > > //]]>
          > > </script>
          > >
          > > Since I'm doing this in xhtml, my IDE likes that tag being there,
          > > otherwise it blows up on typical xml characters like [<]. However,
          > > JSLint is returning a statement such as the following:
          >
          > XHTML is a fiction. If it were real, you wouldn't need to hide the
          > hideous CDATA overhead behind JavaScript comments. You would do better
          > to write your code like this:
          >
          > <script>
          > ....
          > </script>
          >
          > It is smaller, cleaner, faster.
          >
          > Even better, do not put any script in HTML files. Use script src.
          > Separate the markup from the behavior. This tends to lead to better
          > designs. It also can provide better performance because of
          > opportunities for minification, compression, and caching.
          >
          Hey thanks for the reply!

          For the browsers that support a content-type of
          "application/xml+xhtml", is there any advantage for JavaScript when
          working with the DOM compared to "text/html"? If not, then yeah I
          agree that xhtml, while cool in theory, is sadly fictional.

          The only reason I have inline scripting is so that I can pass data
          directly into a view page from a controller using monorail. I keep all
          event handling and other scripting in separate pages. I would rather
          pass it in on the view than do an additional http request for data on
          top of the initial one personally. Since our web apps here use xhtml,
          I have to use the cdata tags to actually code in real (theoretical?)
          xhtml. So I was just wondering if there was a way to suppress those
          warnings for those commented cdata tags.
        • Douglas Crockford
          ... I currently have no plans to support XHTML. Instead, I am improving the HTML support.
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 20 5:19 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <DWTebriel@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <DWTebriel@> wrote:
            > > > I currently have code that looks like the following:
            > > >
            > > > <script type="text/javascript">
            > > > //<![CDATA[
            > > > ...
            > > > //]]>
            > > > </script>
            > > >
            > > > Since I'm doing this in xhtml, my IDE likes that tag being there,
            > > > otherwise it blows up on typical xml characters like [<]. However,
            > > > JSLint is returning a statement such as the following:
            > >
            > > XHTML is a fiction. If it were real, you wouldn't need to hide the
            > > hideous CDATA overhead behind JavaScript comments. You would do better
            > > to write your code like this:
            > >
            > > <script>
            > > ....
            > > </script>
            > >
            > > It is smaller, cleaner, faster.
            > >
            > > Even better, do not put any script in HTML files. Use script src.
            > > Separate the markup from the behavior. This tends to lead to better
            > > designs. It also can provide better performance because of
            > > opportunities for minification, compression, and caching.
            > >
            > Hey thanks for the reply!
            >
            > For the browsers that support a content-type of
            > "application/xml+xhtml", is there any advantage for JavaScript when
            > working with the DOM compared to "text/html"? If not, then yeah I
            > agree that xhtml, while cool in theory, is sadly fictional.
            >
            > The only reason I have inline scripting is so that I can pass data
            > directly into a view page from a controller using monorail. I keep all
            > event handling and other scripting in separate pages. I would rather
            > pass it in on the view than do an additional http request for data on
            > top of the initial one personally. Since our web apps here use xhtml,
            > I have to use the cdata tags to actually code in real (theoretical?)
            > xhtml. So I was just wondering if there was a way to suppress those
            > warnings for those commented cdata tags.

            I currently have no plans to support XHTML. Instead, I am improving
            the HTML support.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.