W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Comments on XHTML 2.0 Working Draft

From: Lachlan Cannon <luminosity@members.evolt.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:44:34 +1000
Message-ID: <3D564012.5070106@members.evolt.org>
To: www-html@w3.org

 >I agree, but would rather see <script src> removed completely in favour
 >of a more sensible/consistent approach like <link rel="script" 
href="...">.

I'd vote in favour of this approach too. This has the benefits of 
reducing bandwidth burden on people who use browsers that don't support 
scripts, namely they're not loading all that extra script, just a small 
link tag. Also, I'd imagine it'd be a lot easier for a parser to know 
that what it was parsing now would all be xml... and that when it 
followed this link to this resource it'd only be parsign a script. IMHO 
all content of markedly different type.. eg, xml, css, js should always 
have to be seperate. Baring in mind that XHTML 2.0 is not designed to be 
bacwards compatible and that moving forward you'll probably want to stay 
backwards compatible with XHTML 2.0, I'd recommend dropping the script 
element now, or at the very least deprecating it.

-- 
Lach
__________________________________________
Web: http://illuminosity.net/
E-mail: lach@illuminosity.net
MSN: luminosity @ members.evolt.org
__________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 11 August 2002 06:45:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT