- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:46:45 -0500
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Cready, James<jcready at rtcrm.com> wrote: > You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML <syntax/> > or the HTML 4 <syntax> doesn?t matter much. Since like I showed in my > previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening > <script> tag the browser will not execute anything inside the tags. > Regardless of whether or not you even specified a value for it. [snip] > It seems like there should be some consistency between the two, either: > > A) Allow <link> to pull in all types of external files: > ? ?CSS: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style.css" /> > ? ?JS : <link rel="javascript" type="text/javascipt" href="script.js" /> > or > B) Allow ONLY <script> and <style> to pull in their external files: > ? ?CSS: <style ?src="style.css" type="text/css"></style> > ? ?JS : <script src="script.js" type="text/javascript"></script> I (and others in this thread, and probably a lot of people on the web as a whole) agree with you that it would be nice to have some consistency there (I favor the <link> approach myself). However, the world is neither kind nor just, and one of HTML5's explicit guidelines is to codify and standardize browser behavior in the wild. We can improve it when it's possible to do so in a backwards-compatible way, but otherwise it's out. <script src> is the way it is. It's inconsistent, but that's how generations of browsers have worked. Trying to change it in the way you suggest not only doesn't work in legacy browsers, it *actively breaks* pages in those browsers. It is simply *not* something that would work unless you did a complete reboot with a purposefully incompatible language - that was tried with XHTML2, and that spec is dead now. We're simply going to have to live with the warts of earlier HTML ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 16:46:45 UTC