- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 07:17:55 -0600
- To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
>> -- 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="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" > xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> > <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 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#restrictions-for-contents-of-script-elements 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. Indeed. -ys
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 13:18:51 UTC