Opera only started supporting the <script> tag in 7.5 when served as application/xhtml+xml and the like. Commands like document.write() don't work in Gecko either, when it is served as an XML mime-type, because the root document is XMLDocument and not HTMLDocument. I don't know anything about how Safari handles an XML mime-type, other than it does.
What does it mean to be "served as"? I've never heard of a server treating XHTML any different than HTML. Does this new file type mean anything when rendering? Is XHTML supposed to have it's own unique file extension if we want to distinguish it from the ordinary htm files? Was it a mistake that I used an XHTML 1.1 DTD on my pages instead of XHTML 1.0 Strict? What's going on with this?
XHTML 1.1 must be served as application/xhtml+xml, however, XHTML 1.0 can be served as text/html. As for the extension, you can use .xhtml, however I would advice against it, and use .html
Personally, I use unicode to display my email address & prevent spam. Web pages display it correctly, but spambots don't understand it. If you don't know how to convert it to unicode -- here's a website that does it for you, free:
Personally, I use unicode to display my email address & prevent spam. Web pages display it correctly, but spambots don't understand it. If you don't know how to convert it to unicode -- here's a website that does it for you, free:
Just enter your email address on the left, & the unicode version will be shown on the right.
So that's what unicode is? I thought it was ASCII (when the numbers are converted to hex, they match the numbers a hex editor will display for ascii text). I've always used only #64 to encode the @ sign since it's the most important part. Without that, the rest is insignifigant to the rest of the contant that may appear on the page. It's a nice link though.
Isn't it highly likely that someone will write a spambot that looks for @ and its unicode equivelant? Wouldn't seem like something terribly hard to do...
I think it'd be clever to just encode the surrounding parts of the @. What're the odds of one looking for &xxx;@&xxx;&xxx;&xxx; ?
I just don't show my email anywhere and force visitors to use my contact <form> :P Those spammers will clue in eventually I betcha.
Opera seems to ignore the CDATA dec when it's ecnased in /* */ CSS comments, anybody know what a good fix would be?
A fix would be not to do it - a commented CDATA section is a contradiction: a non-XML-aware browser doesn't understand CDATA, so it serves no purpose, and an XML-aware browser should require the /* */ to be inside the CDATA section.
There's no correct way to do that trick. Just put the styles in an external file.
__________________
"Why bother with accessibility? ... Because deep down you know that the web is attractive to people who aren't exactly like you." - Joe Clark
A fix would be not to do it - a commented CDATA section is a contradiction: a non-XML-aware browser doesn't understand CDATA, so it serves no purpose, and an XML-aware browser should require the /* */ to be inside the CDATA section.
What? XML parsing precedes XML "rendering" (for lack of a better word for it) precedes parsing of any embedded content in another language, such as CSS or JavaScript. Thus, there would be no such requirement. Let's illustrate it:
01. Start Element head
02. Text "\u000a"
03. Start Element style
04. Attributes attributes
05. Text "selector {\u000a property : value; /* "
06. Start CDATA
07. Text " <a & comment> "
08. End CDATA
09. Text " */\u000a }\u000a"
10. End Element style
11. Text "\u000a"
12. End Element head
XML "rendering"
Code:
Element head
> Text "\u000a"
> Element style
> > Attributes attributes
> > Text "selector {\u000a property : value; /* <a & comment> */\u000a }\u000a"
> Text "\u000a"
Which means that the content sent to the CSS parser will be as follows:
A fix would be not to do it - a commented CDATA section is a contradiction: a non-XML-aware browser doesn't understand CDATA, so it serves no purpose, and an XML-aware browser should require the /* */ to be inside the CDATA section.
There's no correct way to do that trick. Just put the styles in an external file.
well i needed it to be inline to hide from NS4, so since i was using an accept sniffer to server up different doctypes i served up uncommented cdata blocks with the xml mimetype and regualr old style html comments for the old doctype.
__________________
"To be successful in IT you don't need to know everything - just where to find it in under 30 seconds"
But for pure XHTML (served as application/xhtml+xml), would it be more preferable for the script type to be application/x-javascript instead?
Surely "text/ecmascript" is technically most correct?
__________________
"Why bother with accessibility? ... Because deep down you know that the web is attractive to people who aren't exactly like you." - Joe Clark
Before you post, read our: 
try unicode to ward off spam
