- From: Joe English <joe@trystero.art.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 15:13:18 PDT
- To: www-html@w3.org
MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com> wrote: > Is *this* legal SGML? > > <SCRIPT> > <!-- // <![CDATA[ > my script here > // ]]> --> > </SCRIPT> Let's see... In Wilbur (where SCRIPT has the content model (#PCDATA)*), yes, as long as the script does not contain a COM (--) delimiter. However, since everything is inside a comment declaration, the element has no content. (The initial and final record-ends also get swallowed by the parser.) In Cougar (where SCRIPT has CDATA declared content), yes, as long as the script does not contain an ETAGO (</) delimiter-in-context. In this case, the content of the element is: <!-- // <![CDATA[ my script here // ]]> --> (Inside CDATA declared content, the sequences MDO COM (<!--), MDO DSO (<![), DSC MDC (]]>) and COM MDC (-->) are all parsed as data.) > (Like would the comment marker cause the SGML start tag to be commented out > and not parsed by the validator? If so, how about: > <SCRIPT> > // <![CDATA[ > <!-- > etc) I'm not sure what you intended by "etc", but if you're interested you can try running it through a validator. It seems to me that what you and others on this list are trying to do is come up with a magic sequence of characters that will simultaneously: 1) Fool "old browsers" into ignoring scripts; 2) Fool SGML parsers into not complaining about bad markup; 3) Fool "new browsers" to not choke on the stuff that was inserted to achieve 1) and 2), while also managing to recognize the script. I think there is a fundamental problem with this approach. --Joe English joe@art.com
Received on Sunday, 28 July 1996 18:13:33 UTC