Michael Winter wrote:
On 20/12/2005 18:59, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: Michael Winter wrote: [...] It wasn't defined until HTML 4.0, along with STYLE elements.
Wrong. Both were already declared and defined as an element without
any attribute before HTML 4.0, in HTML 3.2.
Defined? No.
[1] Document Type _Definition_
The phrases 'future use' and 'placeholder' don't appear in
five different locations for the fun of it.
I beg your pardon?
There was no attempt at a definition.
Besides of [1], there is:
,-<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#script>
|
| These are place holders for the introduction of style sheets and
| client-side scripts in future versions of HTML. User agents should
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
| hide the contents of these elements.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
That is not only a more detailed definition than the DTD already
provides --
| <!ELEMENT STYLE - - CDATA -- placeholder for style info -->
| <!ELEMENT SCRIPT - - CDATA -- placeholder for script statements -->
-- it is also the part of the specification that renders attempts
at "commenting out" `script' element content using empty markup
declarations nonsensical.
Both IE (3.022) and NN (3.0?) had support for the src attribute
before that time.
The point is
I know what the point is.
No, you don't:
that we are trying to use Valid Markup and the argument for
obsolete "comments" is HTML 3.2.
The argument for the behaviour regards (in principle, at least) pre-3.2
user agents and anyone should (and in this thread, does) agree that this
argument has no merit any more. Why you want to argue over irrelevant
specifics is beyond me.
I do not argue over irrelevant specifics.
So there is no point in stating that HTML 3.2 already supported the
element [...]
I would like to remind you that I was not the one that introduced the
matter of, or initiated any reference to, HTML 3.2. If you feel that
there is no point in discussing it, you might want to ask yourself why
you decided to bring it up.
You snipped what brought meaning to this sentence in the context of
my counter-argument against your counter-argument. JFYI, you stated
that
,-[news:Fu******** **********@text .news.blueyonde r.co.uk]
|
| The best solution to the problem always was, and still is, what is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
| written in the second paragraph of that section.
with which you referred to:
,-<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.3.2>
|
| [...]
| Another solution to the problem is to keep scripts in external
| documents and refer to them with the src attribute.
I commented that there was no `src' attribute for the `script' element
in HTML 3.2, so following your recommendation would create invalid markup
when declaring HTML 3.2 (which is the earliest possible valid version),
which cannot qualify as being the "best solution [...] always was, and
still is" -- a contradiction:
,-[news:24******** ********@Pointe dEars.de]
|
| [i]n HTML 3.2 the `script' element has no attributes at all.
Your counter-argument was that
| In HTML 3.2, the SCRIPT element was nothing more than a placeholder,
| though NN2 was using it. It wasn't defined until HTML 4.0, along with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
| STYLE elements. Both IE (3.022) and NN (3.0?) had support for the src
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
| attribute before that time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
And my counter-argument was that this argumentation of yours contains
a contradiction in context of the reasoning for not using "comments":
,-[news:59******** *********@Point edEars.de]
| [...]
| [...] there is no point in stating that HTML 3.2 already supported
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
| the element and only now-obsolete or then-tagsoup parsers require the
| "comment", but despite HTML 3.2 did not support the `src' attribute,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
| we use it anyway because some tagsoup parsers did.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
PointedEars
