- From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:02:56 -0500
- To: <html-tidy@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> Any chance for an option to *not* wrap the <style> section in >> "commented" CDATA sections? There are no '<' or '&' characters >> needed in any version of CSS. It would be sooo much nicer to have >> just a plain >> >> <style type="text/css"> >> >> </style> >> >> instead of the grotesque >> >> <style type="text/css"> >> /*<![CDATA[*/ >> >> /*]]>*/ >> </style> >> >> currently emitted with XHTML output. > > Yes... Long standing issue, see http://tinyurl.com/2yham if you like. > It is however possible that style elements include <, & or ]]>, a > reference to a background image generated by a server side script, in > generated content or comments for example. The current escape code is > in pprint.c, it should be moved to clean.c and probably needs a > rewrite to address several bugs listed in the bug tracker. Patches > most welcome! (as are concrete proposals for configuration options). A lack of competency and familiarity preclude patches, but as for a concerete proposal, how about something like: style-comment : yes | no | auto script-comment: yes | no | auto (i.e., "AutoBool"). "auto" would test for the presence of '<' or '&' within the pertinent content. I don't have a strong opinion either way as to what the defaults should be. If the general approach is to remain backwards-compatible with older Tidy versions (and head off the inevitable "Hey, what happened to my commented CDATA?" at the pass), they should be "yes" for both. Otherwise use "auto" for <style> (I initially thought it should be "no", but after reading your message, I concede the rare case), and either "auto" or "yes" for <script> -- probably "yes", because there's a likely probability of post-Tidy edits of <script> sections. What do you think? /Jelks
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 18:03:16 UTC