langua= vs type=

[xah]

what's the pro and con of using

<script language="javas cript">
vs
<script type="text/javascript">

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[Martin Honnen]

xa*@xahlee.org wrote:

what's the pro and con of using

<script language="javas cript">
vs
<script type="text/javascript">

Originally when browser vendors invented the <script> element they gave
it a language attribute where the value could be anything.

Those standardizing HTML did not like that attribute but rather
preferred to introduce the type attribute which is supposed to take a
standardized content type value:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.1>
Ironically until recently text/javascript as a content type was nowhere
standardized.

By now you can simply use
<script type="text/javascript">
browsers around understand that and you write valid HTML 4 that way if
you care or other judging your HTML care.

--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/

[Jim Davis]

<xa*@xahlee.org > wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ z14g2000cwz.goo glegroups.com.. .
what's the pro and con of using

<script language="javas cript">
vs
<script type="text/javascript">
I'd use both, personally.

The latter is standardized and recommended while the former is deprecated...
but the former still has the best support and is still the cleanest way to
specify the version of the language needed for the script.

For example using : <script language="JavaS cript1.5"> will prevent your
script from running on
most older browsers.

It really annoys me when the W3C replacement technologies don't address all
the features of the thing they're replacing. ;^)

Jim Davis

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

"Jim Davis" <ne********@vbo ston.com> writes:

<script language="javas cript">
vs
<script type="text/javascript">

I'd use both, personally.

The latter is standardized and recommended while the former is deprecated...
.... and required for validating HTML, not to forget.
but the former still has the best support
Can you find any browser that accepts <script language="javas cript"> but
doesn't treat <script type="text/javascript"> exactly the same?
and is still the cleanest way to specify the version of the language
needed for the script.
The version of "JavaScript " that you need, but only Netscape and Mozilla
uses JavaScript as the language. IE uses JScript and other browsers use
their own version of ECMAScript.
For example using : <script language="JavaS cript1.5"> will prevent your
script from running on most older browsers.

That might be useful if your script contains new syntax not available
in earlier versions, but otherwise you should use feature detection
instead. It degrades much cleaner.

Also, at least one version of JavaScript had different semantics for
the same code, compared to later (and earlier) versions. Specifiying
that version, i.e., <script language="javas cript1.2">, will make
some browsers use JS1.2 semantics and other browsers use current version
semantics, so the same program works differently *because* the language
version is specified.

I recommend only using the type attribute and using feature detection
for differences between different browsers. There are far more browsers
than there are JavaScript versions.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[xah]

> <script language="javas cript"> vs <script type="text/javascript">

The latter is standardized and recommended while the former is deprecated....
but the former still has the best support and is still the cleanest way to
specify the version of the language needed for the script.
very good point. A look over the major sites shows that:

amazon.com uses both and sometimes just the language=.

applec.om uses just the language=.
yahoo.com uses just the language=.
orkut.com uses just the type=.

msn.com sometimes uses both, sometimes one or the other.
ebay same with msn.com.

so far it seems the language= is more popular...

Those using language= does not always indicate a version.

one wonders if there is a pattern for sites that uses both sometimes
one of the other.
my guess is that it's rather random...

oh, the story of the industry....

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

Jim Davis wrote: <xa*@xahlee.org > wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ z14g2000cwz.goo glegroups.com.. .
what's the pro and con of using

<script language="javas cript">
vs
<script type="text/javascript">
I'd use both, personally.

The latter is standardized and recommended while the former is deprecated....
but the former still has the best support and is still the cleanest way to
specify the version of the language needed for the script.

For example using : <script language="JavaS cript1.5"> will prevent your
script from running on
most older browsers.

It really annoys me when the W3C replacement technologies don't address all
the features of the thing they're replacing. ;^)

Jim Davis

[xah]

[e-mail] wrote:
A look over the major sites shows that:

amazon.com uses both and sometimes just the language=.

applec.om uses just the language=.
yahoo.com uses just the language=.
orkut.com uses just the type=.

msn.com sometimes uses both, sometimes one or the other.
ebay same with msn.com.

google.com simply uses <script> period, way ahead of the pack!

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[Jim Davis]

"Lasse Reichstein Nielsen" <lr*@hotpop.com > wrote in message
news:ac******** **@hotpop.com.. .

"Jim Davis" <ne********@vbo ston.com> writes:

<script language="javas cript">
vs
<script type="text/javascript">

I'd use both, personally.

The latter is standardized and recommended while the former is
deprecated...
... and required for validating HTML, not to forget.

but the former still has the best support

Can you find any browser that accepts <script language="javas cript"> but
doesn't treat <script type="text/javascript"> exactly the same?

Yes - all of them. The former can specific version while the latter
cannot - this is a difference. Also, there is really nothing to do with the
type="text/javascript" - can you give me an exmaple of how a browser that
supports the src attribute but doesn't support the type attribute would
behave differently from one that supports both?
and is still the cleanest way to specify the version of the language
needed for the script.

The version of "JavaScript " that you need, but only Netscape and Mozilla
uses JavaScript as the language. IE uses JScript and other browsers use
their own version of ECMAScript.

While that's true in a sense it's not in practice. JScript (and other
browser implementations ) are ECMAScript complaint - so they happily accept
"JavaScript 1.3" (for example) as a language attribute. The marketing name
of the implementation doesn't affect it compatibility with the standard
name.

For example using : <script language="JavaS cript1.5"> will prevent your
script from running on most older browsers.

That might be useful if your script contains new syntax not available
in earlier versions, but otherwise you should use feature detection
instead. It degrades much cleaner.

True - I agree completely. But often it's unclear what features to detect.
;^)

Noplace did I say (or will I ever say) that you should use this as your only
validation of capability. But it is a very good "front line" which gives
you a basic level of understanding.
Also, at least one version of JavaScript had different semantics for
the same code, compared to later (and earlier) versions. Specifiying
that version, i.e., <script language="javas cript1.2">, will make
some browsers use JS1.2 semantics and other browsers use current version
semantics, so the same program works differently *because* the language
version is specified.

Exactly (the browser you're thinking of is Netscape 2.0) which is why, in
general, I recommend using "JavaScript 1.3" as the language attribute.
You're code won't run on Netscape 2.0 but neither will you have to deal with
it's broken implementation.

Jim Davis

[Kimmo Laine]

<xa*@xahlee.org > kirjoitti
viestissä:11*** *************** ****@g49g2000cw a.googlegroups. com...

<script language="javas cript"> vs <script type="text/javascript">
The latter is standardized and recommended while the former is
deprecated...
but the former still has the best support and is still the cleanest way
to
specify the version of the language needed for the script.

very good point. A look over the major sites shows that:

What does major sites have to do with writing valid markup? Nothing. Just
because a site has lot of hits, doesn't automatically say that the code is
valid. In fact, like in Google's case, the code may be complete crap. Just
try running google.com through a w3c validator - doesn't avalidate, man.
Instead you need to look at w3c specs what they have to say about it and do
it like that.

Major sites are not standards, standards are standards. w3c.org has listed
those standards and specifications for html markup, xhtml or css, etc.
Regardless of what major sites do, you need to do like the standards say,
not like major sites do it.

--
SETI @ Home - Donate your cpu's idle time to science.
Further reading at <http://setiweb.ssl.ber keley.edu/>
Kimmo Laine <et************ ****@5P4Mgmail. com>

[Kimmo Laine]

<xa*@xahlee.org > kirjoitti
viestissä:11*** *************** ****@g49g2000cw a.googlegroups. com...

amazon.com uses both and sometimes just the language=.
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...819246-3276165
Cannot even begin to check code, because the charset is already fucked.
applec.om uses just the language=.
Assuming you meant apple.com?
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...www.apple.com/
-> Not valid. One of the errors: required attribute "TYPE" not specified in
<SCRIPT>
yahoo.com uses just the language=.

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...www.yahoo.com/
-> Not valid (failed with unbelievable 266 errors.) Once again one of the
errors: required attribute "TYPE" not specified in <SCRIPT>, but there's
just so many things wrong with the page that one can but wonder, how the do
these pages work at all, unless the browsers have great tolerance for
errors.
orkut.com uses just the type=.
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...com/Login.aspx
-> Not valid. One of the errors: required attribute "TYPE" not specified in
<SCRIPT>
msn.com sometimes uses both, sometimes one or the other.
ebay same with msn.com.

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...//www.msn.com/
-> Not valid. Tries to be xhtml, but fails! Hah! And here's the thing:
there is no attribute "language" and required attribute "type" not
specified:
<script language="JavaS cript">

And in your follow-up you refered to google.com:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...ww.google.com/
-> Not valid. One of the errors: required attribute "TYPE" not specified in
<script>
In conclusion: in html 4.01 "type" is required in <script> and when moving
to xhtml, language is no more allowed. Need I say more?

Lesson we learned today, kids, is that never ever look at major sites code
and assume it's correct. Not one single site of what you suggested were
valid according to w3c validator.

--
SETI @ Home - Donate your cpu's idle time to science.
Further reading at <http://setiweb.ssl.ber keley.edu/>
Kimmo Laine <et************ ****@5P4Mgmail. com>

[Robert]

xa*@xahlee.org wrote:

what's the pro and con of using

<script language="javas cript">
vs
<script type="text/javascript">

Use
<script type="text/javascript">

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interac....html#h-18.2.1

It's the only way to get standards compliant HTML.

Although the language parameter allows you to detect the version, it is
actually much easier to use feature detection instead of having to
figure out which feature is in which version. And it would not surprise
me if browser think different about what is in which version.

The fact that most website use the language parameter (too) is no reason
to do it like that too. Most people do not know or care about web
standards and other browsers than IE.