- From: Ka-Ping Yee <kpyee@aw.sgi.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 14:39:07 +0900
- To: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Cc: Ka-Ping Yee <kpyee@aw.sgi.com>, www-html@w3.org
David Perrell wrote: > > You consider the options from a practical point of view. A practical > point of view would include the option already implemented: > > What's the likelihood of finding "</script>" in a script? > Let's just say, as is the case now, that it can't be there. Yes, i am basically saying that this option "doesn't count". Why not? Because it cannot be valid SGML, as far as i can tell. (If you would rather throw SGML out the window, that is another issue.) Keep in mind that SGML compliance is not just some kind of pointless dance or an entirely academic endeavour. It is tangibly useful for documents to be valid SGML. I think that more and more people will demand a level of confidence in document integrity (which we are currently lacking) that validity can provide, especially as HTML and its applications become more complex. > My problem with the explicitly marked section thing is that the > <script></script> pair already marks an element with a particular type > of content. Additional markup is redundant. I can see the value of minimalism. But in this case, the disruption is too great. The script is dangerous to drop in the middle of HTML in the first place, and it needs better protection, so to speak. The fact that it is an entirely different type of information justifies marking it up as such -- on a level beyond HTML tags, i.e. with an SGML marked section. Ping
Received on Monday, 29 July 1996 01:50:11 UTC