RE: ACTION-233: Update quality issue example to use the solution (XML in "script" tag) for standoff markup

>> -- 1) As already mentioned: the type of the script would be set to the 
>> ITS MIME Type (application/its+xml)
> Yes, but we should test if this works in all browsers. Some might try 
> to execute JS code inside <script> if MIME type is not recognized.
> All browsers should recognize application/xml though.

Good point.

>> I'm using comments to encapsulate the code for now, instead 
>> of escaping the content. I think this is where we need to have a single 
>> way to do things.
> I don't undestand why you are using comments? Why not just do
> <script type="application/its+xml">
> <its:rules version="2.0" xmlns:its=""
>  xmlns:h="">
> <its:translateRule translate="no" selector="//h:code"/> </its:rules> </script>

Old habit of making sure the browser doesn't trip on the content. But I guess that's not needed anymore.

> The only limitaion is that you can't use </script>, otherwise 
> you can use any markup without any escaping. Content of script 
> element will parse a single text node on which you must invoke 
> XML parsing yourself.

Looking at it seemed the restriction were more complex.

But if </script> is the only limitation in our use case, that's great.

> Probably yes to using id on the script element. But we 
> have to be carefully here. On XHTML you will get duplicate 
> IDs then, we need to write down some guidelines.



Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 13:18:51 UTC