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

Re: cdata, javascript and xhtml1.1

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:23:52 +0000
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Message-Id: <9CEB7A3E-0057-11D7-9843-0003939B5AD0@btinternet.com>


glad to see you're one of us, this thread was at html, however ig also 
has a place, though you may also want to post your response to html...
Its fairly inaccessible if you need a second degree to write it, well 
as I say I'm having problems :-]
I'm having real problems putting up an xhtml page that a browser will 
treat as xhtml.

I'd just as soon have a simple example, with a .htaccess file, 
javascript, css, and an xhtml file.

is my current best effort, which validates at w3.  IE6 and Mozilla both 
want to download this rather than open it.

.htaccess file: AddType text/xhtml+xml xhtml

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=us-ascii" 
your point about the meta tag is well taken, thanks, a number of other 
respondents missed this:

document.write('<bgsound src="#" id="mysound" loop="1" />')
the IE specific javascript bgsound not being quoted, the code is mainly 
however as mentioned elsewhere, I've had problems for some years 
getting sound-on-event to work without flash in mozilla, icab, opera or 
other browsers. this need is not yet recognised by w3

these files are transient, as I change them in response to replies, and 
my understanding :-]

thanks again


On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 06:35 PM, David Woolley wrote:

>> 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 
> 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 Monday, 25 November 2002 04:23:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:21 UTC