Re: still too early for XHTML :-((

Try this...

<script type="text/_javascript_"
src="">
I'm actually not sure why the w3c validator reports your page as valid
XHTML because I'm pretty sure that the </script> end tag is
required instead of the shortcut tag.

If XMLC, by default, modifies your <script></script> to
<script /> or if you create a <scipt> element via the DOM and
XMLC writes it as <script /> instead of
<script></script>, then that is a bug in XMLC.  Let's
say I'm wrong about this, for arguments sake, and the standards actually
say that the shortcut <script /> tag *is* valid XHTML.  At the
very least, using <script></script> instead of <script
/> is a perfectly HTML/XHTML compatible way to import _javascript_
files.  This wouildn't be an IE only hack.  This would be
totally compatible with standards if XMLC did it this way.

Jake

At 02:29 PM 4/7/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you may recall from my occassional posts here, I have been trying
> to
> use XHTML with Enhydra for several months already. I patched 
> various
> things in Enhydra/XMLC (some fixes, some hacks) in order to get it
> working and was almost happy - until I decided to try also 
> non-Gecko
> browsers. After some hours of debugging IE6 problems I managed to
> isolate a possible bug in SCRIPT tag handling:
>
> http://www.prevue.cz/ie6bug.html
>
> For me it seems as a clear evidence that I wasted my time on the
> XHTML
> for nothing. If the latest browser with 95% market share is unable
> to
> load _javascript_ file then XHTML is completely unusable.
>
> I don't think XMLC/Enhydra would be modified in the way it outputs
> the
> SCRIPT tag just to fix this buggy behaviour of IE. Or am I wrong 
> and
> such patch would be accepted in the mainline?
>
> Anyway, I'll most probably convert my XHTML files to HTML, change
> the
> XMLC parser back to the default one and be happy again.
>
> Petr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> XMLC mailing list
> XMLC@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.enhydra.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/xmlc