- 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