- From: Richard O'Keefe <ok@cs.otago.ac.nz>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:46:13 +1200
- To: "Ivor O'Connor" <ivor.oconnor@gmail.com>
- Cc: html-tidy@w3.org
On 7 May 2009, at 2:51 am, Ivor O'Connor wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ivor O'Connor <ivor.oconnor@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Tidy support for JavaScript
> To: Arnaud Desitter <arnaud02@users.sourceforge.net>
>
>
> Hmmm. A tool for pretty printing html and no support for what is
> almost always contained in html?
(1) Tidy is NOT a tool for pretty-printing HTML.
It is a tool for FIXING broken HTML, as produced
by far too many tools (including commercial ones).
(2) It may be the case that JavaScript is almost always
contained in HTML -- the JavaScript that I've done
isn't, but let it pass -- but it does not follow that
HTML almost always contains JavaScript. I just wrote
a wee program to check for "<script " and got found
that about 41% of >100,000 HTML files on my machine
contained scripts. YMMV of course.
(3) JavaScript syntax is much more complicated than HTML syntax
and has changed quite a bit over the last 10 years.
At least for HTML, there is a rough consensus about what
pretty-printing amounts to -- although it _is_ only a
_rough_ consensus -- while for programming languages like
JavaScript there is much less agreement.
(4) If you keep your JavaScript in separate .js files, where
it belongs, you can use http://jsbeautifier.org/ to
tidy it. (Or any of several others, of course.)
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 00:47:02 UTC