W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > February 2001

Re: Validator should not be interpreting <SCRIPT> tag contents atall

From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:26:52 +0100
To: Bryce Nesbitt <bryce@obviously.com>
cc: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>, www-validator@w3.org, gerald@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010208152738-r01010600-f6be890a@10.0.0.2>
[ Why are we CCing Gerald on this? ]

On 08.02.01 at 08:56, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce@obviously.com> wrote:

>But your suggestion smacks of one made by a person that has never had to
>use JavaScript in a web page.  It's impractical.  Real world one needs to
>embed scripts, and those scripts need to embed HTML.

Sure. And the real world needs to escape their slashes. You want to go bug
Netscape and MS to stop interpreting an unescaped double quote as the string
end delimiter?


>Think of it this way.  Right now the validator "cries wolf", and therefore
>won't be used to validate real world JavaScript pages.

It's not crying wolf! The string you're refering to actually does terminate the
SCRIPT element. That browsers don't do this is a bug in the browsers! This is
the same situation as quotes around attribute values and terminating semicolon
on entity references.


>What's better: intellectual purity or getting more people to validate more
>of their pages?

So no matter the input, the Validator should return "Valid" just to make more
people use it?


>And there is a problem just as serious as getting the validator to stop
>complaining about non-problems.  Javascript is often used to BUILD html. 
>What's relevant is not the syntax rules of the bare document, but the
>syntax rules of the document after interpretation.

But there is no way for a Validator to do that. It's possible in thory, but
nearly impossible to achieve in practice; especially if the JavaScript is
malformed as you want it to be. 


>a browser that will save the RESULT of the interpreted page for later
>validation.  Does this exist?

Dunno. Have you tried "Save as..." in your browser? :-)
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 09:27:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:55 GMT