W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Suggestion: <link rel="script">

From: Jonny Axelsson <jax@opera.no>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:17:37 +0200
To: www-html@w3.org
CC: w3c-html-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010822102018.GYQA20663.mta01@defnit>
22.08.01 11:32:30, "Clover Andrew" <aclover@1value.com> wrote:

>Problem:
>  <script> is undesirably overloaded. It is used to include
>  embedded scripts in a document as well as to link to external
>  scripts.

>Solution:
>  a new <link> type for scripts which could be used in the
>  <head> in the same way as <link rel="stylesheet">. The script
>  would executed when the page has been fully received.


I think this is an interesting idea. I have earlier complained that the 
current script/noscript model is fundamentally broken, and something 
better is needed for XHTML 2.0.


One idea I have fooled around with is an OBJECT like nested alternate 
content syntax,

<script src="URI" type="text/scriptLang">
   <!-- alternate/noscript content for text/scriptLang here -->

   <!-- This script may only run if text/scriptLang didn't: -->
   <script src="URI" type="text/otherLang">
      <!-- content if neither scripts ran will be here -->
   </script>

   <!-- more alternate content for text/scriptLang content here -->
</script>


Advantages:
*  Script and noscript works
*  In fact, the noscript version would be the same as having 
   all script start/end tags removed 

Disadvantages:
*  Inline scripts will no longer be possible
*  In fact, the content of XHTML 1.0 inline scripts will be 
   displayed unless you have some script {display:none} feature 


Jonny Axelsson,
Documentation,
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 06:18:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:49 GMT