W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: cdata, javascript and xhtml1.1

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:35:37 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200211241835.gAOIZbF02702@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

> Could someone expand on why CDATA is essential?
> 
> our page* validates fine without it, yet when I include it the page no 
> longer appears to load :-( ie5.2 mac mozilla20021115 mac ie6 pc

The script is within an XHTML comment.  The CDATA markup prevents the
recognition of this as a comment.  The HTML DTD declares script content
to be CDATA, but XML requires that a parse be possible without the
DTD, so CDATA must be indicated explicitly in line, and cannot be in
the DTD.

Any browser that honours the script is not treating the resource as XHTML,
which is probably reasonable as neither the HTTP header nor the meta
element claim that it is.

Note that it should not validate, as it contains elements that are not in
the DTD, and has missing quotes which make it not even well formed.

There's a broken fragment link (src=#).  There are bogus javascript:'s at
the start of the event handlers - I guess this parses as an unused label.

Is some browser really treating meta reply-to as a sneaky link element,
and accepting URLs.  Even if it were a valid http-equiv, the standard
RFC use of Reply-To headers does not include a mailto: scheme prefix!
There is a perfectly good link element notation for this, although it 
dropped out of the specs because no major browser implemented it (Mozilla
now does):  <link rev="made" href="mailto:xzxx@kfadf.example.com">.

The scripting appears to be IE specific.

Not sure what this has to do with accessibility.
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2002 13:35:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:07 GMT