Re: still too early for XHTML :-((

Try this...

<script type="text/javascript" src="ie6bug.js"></script>

I'm actually not sure why the w3c validator reports your page as valid 
XHTML because I'm pretty sure that the </script> end tag is required 
instead of the shortcut tag.

If XMLC, by default, modifies your <script></script> to <script /> or if 
you create a <scipt> element via the DOM and XMLC writes it as <script /> 
instead of <script></script>, then that is a bug in XMLC.  Let's say I'm 
wrong about this, for arguments sake, and the standards actually say that 
the shortcut <script /> tag *is* valid XHTML.  At the very least, using 
<script></script> instead of <script /> is a perfectly HTML/XHTML 
compatible way to import javascript files.  This wouildn't be an IE only 
hack.  This would be totally compatible with standards if XMLC did it this way.

Jake

At 02:29 PM 4/7/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>as you may recall from my occassional posts here, I have been trying to
>use XHTML with Enhydra for several months already. I patched various
>things in Enhydra/XMLC (some fixes, some hacks) in order to get it
>working and was almost happy - until I decided to try also non-Gecko
>browsers. After some hours of debugging IE6 problems I managed to
>isolate a possible bug in SCRIPT tag handling:
>
>http://www.prevue.cz/ie6bug.html
>
>For me it seems as a clear evidence that I wasted my time on the XHTML
>for nothing. If the latest browser with 95% market share is unable to
>load javascript file then XHTML is completely unusable.
>
>I don't think XMLC/Enhydra would be modified in the way it outputs the
>SCRIPT tag just to fix this buggy behaviour of IE. Or am I wrong and
>such patch would be accepted in the mainline?
>
>Anyway, I'll most probably convert my XHTML files to HTML, change the
>XMLC parser back to the default one and be happy again.
>
>Petr
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>XMLC mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://www.enhydra.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/xmlc