RE: The SCRIPT element

Are you sending it with an XHTML/XML content type, or are you sending it with (broken) text/html?
If the latter, then you are telling the browser to execute it as HTML, reverting to tagsoup fallback rendering.
 
XHTML doctypes (and XHTML/XML type markup) is utterly useless unless sent with an XHTML or XML content type declaration.
 
 
Rainer

________________________________

From: www-style-request@w3.org on behalf of Francois Remy
Sent: Wed 2008-07-16 1:22 PM
To: David Dorward; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: The SCRIPT element




So you're confirming my understanding of the question.
But, why the element is rendered with the comment even if I decide to put an
XHTML doctype ?

Fremy

--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:33 PM
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: The SCRIPT element

>
> On 16 Jul 2008, at 16:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:55:12 +0200, Francois Remy
>> <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> If we have <script><!-- --></script> display, we should
>>> see no content in the script (because this is a comment
>>> that's in the script). But in Firefox and Safari, we see
>>> the <!-- --> as plain text. In Opera, after the "fit" button
>>> was pressed, we can see the "<!-- -->".
>>
>> That sounds correct for HTML, since <script> is not parsed like any
>> other element.
>
>
> In HTML, <script> and <style> are defined as containing CDATA, so <!--  is
> a string of characters and not the start of a comment (and magic  happens
> to stop them being interpreted as CSS or JS). There is  something to
> render here.
>
> In XHTML, <script> and <style> are not defined as containing CDATA, so  a
> comment is a comment and stops the script from being executed  (assuming
> the document is not served as text/html). There isn't  something to render
> here.
>
> --
> David Dorward
> http://dorward.me.uk/
> http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
>
>
>