Comments on: Why doesn’t <script /> work? http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work Cleaning up the web with Ajax Thu, 17 May 2012 07:43:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Scott Schiller http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work/comment-page-1#comment-103195 Scott Schiller Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:49:35 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work#comment-103195 Logically thinking, it's expected for IMG to be a closed element as it never has any nested elements or text inside of it. Following this logic, SCRIPT could be either/or given that you can have it as an "empty" (and therefore closed) element by using SRC= ..but if the code is inserted inline, then obviously a separate closing tag is needed. Looks like SCRIPT should always have a separate closing tag, based on what the article says. Logically thinking, it’s expected for IMG to be a closed element as it never has any nested elements or text inside of it.

Following this logic, SCRIPT could be either/or given that you can have it as an “empty” (and therefore closed) element by using SRC= ..but if the code is inserted inline, then obviously a separate closing tag is needed. Looks like SCRIPT should always have a separate closing tag, based on what the article says.

]]> By: Daniel Luz http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work/comment-page-1#comment-102881 Daniel Luz Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:27:26 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work#comment-102881 Completely agreed with Martin Bialasinski. The sole reason for it to happen is because people are <em>not</em> serving XHTML documents, thus making the browsers still parse them as HTML (have you ever tried validating your websites as what they really are, HTML?). The slash inside an HTML tag has a different meaning (inherited from SGML), but most browsers ignore it (or else they would break with all fake-XHTML websites). Since IMG tags have no content, there's no difference for you if the "/" is being interpreted or not. Completely agreed with Martin Bialasinski. The sole reason for it to happen is because people are not serving XHTML documents, thus making the browsers still parse them as HTML (have you ever tried validating your websites as what they really are, HTML?). The slash inside an HTML tag has a different meaning (inherited from SGML), but most browsers ignore it (or else they would break with all fake-XHTML websites).

Since IMG tags have no content, there’s no difference for you if the “/” is being interpreted or not.

]]> By: Vance Dubberly http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work/comment-page-1#comment-102211 Vance Dubberly Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:53:50 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work#comment-102211 Hmm guess I should stop cursing my Hmm guess I should stop cursing my

]]> By: Martin Bialasinski http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work/comment-page-1#comment-102171 Martin Bialasinski Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:37:35 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work#comment-102171 Dion, you missed the point of the article, I am afraid. The fact that <img /> works and <script /> does not work has nothing to do with the error handling behaviour of the HTML parser. The HTML DTD clearly states: <!ELEMENT IMG - O EMPTY -- Embedded image --> <!ELEMENT SCRIPT - - %Script; -- script statements --> <!ENTITY % Script "CDATA" -- script expression --> See the EMPTY at the IMG definition? The paragraphs from the blog article only explain, why you can use <img /> in documents served as content-type text/html. Why the whole "XHTML doctype, but served as text/html"-mess works at all. Dion, you missed the point of the article, I am afraid.

The fact that <img /> works and <script /> does not work has nothing to do with the error handling behaviour of the HTML parser.

The HTML DTD clearly states:
<!ELEMENT IMG – O EMPTY — Embedded image –>
<!ELEMENT SCRIPT – - %Script; — script statements –>
<!ENTITY % Script “CDATA” — script expression –>

See the EMPTY at the IMG definition?

The paragraphs from the blog article only explain, why you can use <img /> in documents served as content-type text/html. Why the whole “XHTML doctype, but served as text/html”-mess works at all.

]]> By: Simon Jia http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work/comment-page-1#comment-102170 Simon Jia Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:35:26 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work#comment-102170 I remember there was a blog post early that shows an IE error where if you have a simple , IE will duplicate the text in front of it. I remember there was a blog post early that shows an IE error where if you have a simple , IE will duplicate the text in front of it.

]]> By: Ian http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work/comment-page-1#comment-102160 Ian Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:56:29 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work#comment-102160 I don't agree with the articles serving up HTML *at all*. To me, the article is simply saying "Our software 'Webkit' can't handle XHTML as well as we'd like, so for the time being, can you publish as HTML? It'll work better!" XHTML has at the very least added formal structure to web development! Now I know why I don't use Safari! I don’t agree with the articles serving up HTML *at all*. To me, the article is simply saying “Our software ‘Webkit’ can’t handle XHTML as well as we’d like, so for the time being, can you publish as HTML? It’ll work better!”

XHTML has at the very least added formal structure to web development! Now I know why I don’t use Safari!

]]> By: Mario http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work/comment-page-1#comment-102085 Mario Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:23:21 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work#comment-102085 Cool, very informative... @dc - I think safari is bult on webkit. Cool, very informative… @dc – I think safari is bult on webkit.

]]> By: dc http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work/comment-page-1#comment-102052 dc Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:38:50 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work#comment-102052 is webkit.org the same as the Safari folks? is webkit.org the same as the Safari folks?

]]> By: Andrew Hedges http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work/comment-page-1#comment-102017 Andrew Hedges Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:35:18 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/archives/why-doesnt-script-work#comment-102017 After reading the Surfin' Safari article and others on the topic, our company is considering "reverting" from XHTML 1.0 to HTML 4.01. Are others doing the same? The only real reason we could come up with for staying with XHTML was marketing, you know, so we appear to be up on the latest and greatest. I'd be interested to hear technical arguments for staying with XHTML. After reading the Surfin’ Safari article and others on the topic, our company is considering “reverting” from XHTML 1.0 to HTML 4.01. Are others doing the same? The only real reason we could come up with for staying with XHTML was marketing, you know, so we appear to be up on the latest and greatest. I’d be interested to hear technical arguments for staying with XHTML.

]]>