W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2006

Re: [BULK] - Re: [XHTML2] Spirit of "1.1.3. XHTML 2 and Presentation" (PR#7759)

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:49:04 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200602210749.k1L7n4R01722@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

> Neither Java nor .Net languages can reasonably be described as script. 
> Both require pre-compilation into bytecode to be executable, are 
> services provided by host computers rather than browsers, so do not 
> serve the same purpose.

That was exactly my point.  The function that is being performed is
programmed client side modification of the document object model.  Server
side compiled technologies are perfectly reasonable ways of achieving that
(unless you want to encourage self modifying code - generally considered
bad practice from a maintainability point of view).  If you look at the
document object model specifications, they already include Java bindings.

Consequently, the name "script" makes unwarranted assumptions about how
the function is being implemented.

> I can't tell, but are you for the proposal or against? I'm counting 2 to 
> 1 against so far, but I am still hopeful, and willing to compromise to 
> reach agreement.

I definitely disagree with putting such things into the global namespace.

I'd also note that most scripting depends on proprietary browser
(automation) object models rather than the standardised W3C document
object models, so having a standard mechanism for marking inline scripts
wouldn't be sufficient to make them work in a solely standards compliant
environment.

I'd consider both to be logically attributes or processing instructions,
rather than elements, as they are not marked up document content.
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 08:02:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:43 GMT