Re: Comments in markup?

Albert Lunde <> wrote:
>At 6:22 PM 7/29/96, Foteos Macrides wrote:
>>	So isn't it in fact true that the ONLY way to include script
>>code "100%" safely in an HTML document instance is as an encoded (hex
>>or BASE64) attribute value?
>While this has some merit, it may run into another set of problems due to
>SGML or implementation limits on the size of attribute values.

	Yes, the RFC for the data: URL is going to have a reminder that:

"URLs embedded within <A> anchors in HTML have a length limit determined 
 by the SGML declaration for HTML[RFC1866]. The LITLEN (1024) limits the
 number of characters which can appear in a single attribute value literal,
 the ATTSPLEN (2100) limits the sum of all lengths of all attribute value
 specifications which appear in a tag, and the TAGLEN (2100) limits the
 overall length of a tag."
	But it you're dealing with a script which would cause those
limits to be exceeded, you're better off pointing the SRC attritute
at a standard URL for fetching the script, rather than inlining the
code via a data: URL or as raw SCRIPT content.

>(Some options, including this and the CDATA marked sections may also be
>unpopular as being hard to type and/or not enough like the popular flavors
>of script/tag soup.)

	I don't see why the marked sections approach, per se, would
seem any more strange than the comment-encasing (if you look at the
examples of each in the full SCRIPT draft, to the naive eye they're
rather similar).  The problem is that neither can be made 100%
reliable, and both are perversions of SGML rather than a fuller
embodiment of it.  Also, since MicroSoft has implemented the data:
URL, it presumeably with be providing ways to use in via authoring
tools, and other clients and authoring tools are likely to follow
that lead.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

Received on Monday, 29 July 1996 19:49:59 UTC