Re: XHTML Invalidity / WML2 / New XHTML 1.1 Attribute

***********Stephanos Piperoglou ***********
On 8/15/00 at 10:32 PM Stephanos Piperoglou wrote:
So, in conclusion, it *is* a hack :-)
In any case, I'd generally recommend people stick to the rules:
Open a comment with exactly "<!--"
Close a comment with exactly "-->"
If in a SCRIPT or STYLE element, put these on separate lines
If in a SCRIPT element, use "//-->"
Escape the string "--" anywhere inside a comment
Escape the string "/>" anywhere inside a SCRIPT or STYLE element

That should keep everyone out of trouble. The rest is just all of us
being pedantic :-)
***********************************************

Yikes!!  <chuckles> Hey it was never my intention or desire to 
discuss if <!-- was a hack or not.  In truth that was nothing more
than a opinion and nothing more,  but the key point is that if
we follow the guidelines of W3C than <!-- should work in most
browsers.  And that is all that really counts to all of us.

Since <!--  works so very well and now is adopted as a 
standard for the most part my question is this.  Instead
of mixing vocabularies and possibly generating many
conflicts between the two vocabularies can it or would 
it be possible instead to use <!-- as a means of incorporating
another vocabulary within a document.  

If a parser can handle this separation then it seems to me that 
a validator should have no problem either. Simply call upon the correct
validator/parser for whatever vocabulary you wish to incorporate
within the document.  And if the agent does not recognize 
the vocabulary then it would simply be parse as a comment line.

This is really nothing new except how it's implemented.  The big
advantage is that I as a developer could use the full resources of
both vocabularies and would not have to worry with the possibility
of any conflicts between the two vocabularies or build specialized
modules to accomadate the two languages.  And the nice thing is
that the entire document could be validated because I would validate
each vocabulary within the document separately on it's own merit.

Cavre

Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2000 05:19:34 UTC