Petr Stehlik wrote:
On Po, 2003-04-07 at 19:37, Jacob Kjome wrote:
So, can anyone confirm that if an XHTMLScriptElement is added to the
XHTML DOM that it is written as <script></script> instead of <script
I can confirm that it's written out as <script /> and while it is a
problem for browsers with closed source code it is not a real 'bug'
since W3C allows that.
If it is writing it as <script /> then we will have a major browser
incompatibility.
yes, both IE 5-6 and Opera 7 choke on that and stop rendering the page.
It should definitely be written as <script></script>.
But the <script /> is XHTML compatible. XMLC does that to all tags when
generating XHTML. Perhaps the David Corbin's patch with configurable
behaviour will help but then the question is why to bother with
producing XHTML 1.0 when the output is basically equal to HTML 4.01.
Let me list all the XHTML problems I encountered so far, IIRC:
1) document type incorrect, javascript didn't work
2) too old DTD for XHTML in XMLC
3) setting of boolean attributes does not work
4) single quotes are converted to ' (IE doesn't understand)
5) <script /> is not understood by IE/Opera
6) URLRewriter does not work
I patched this too. But, I'm not 100% sure I submitted that patch. I
will try to check tomorrow.
I reported all problems and submitted patch for 1 and 2 and suggested
solutions for 3 and 6. David C. submitted patch for 4 and 5.
Even if the 3 got fixed (not that hard) the 6 is still a serious issue.
Also note that XMLC with patch 5 basically produces HTML 4.01 code,
since the only visible difference between HTML and XHTML is the short
form of <TAG />. So after disabling the short form of closing tag the
question is why to bother with XHTML at all.
Well, I can think of two things: 1) long-term thinking & 2) It's been
nice that the parser complains when we start out with an invalid template...
Petr
_______________________________________________
XMLC mailing list
XMLC@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.enhydra.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/xmlc
| 