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

Re: CDATA on Inline Scripts

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Aug 19, 2008
      --- 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 2 of 4 , Aug 20, 2008
        --- 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.