Re: still too early for XHTML :-((

On St, 2003-04-09 at 13:31, Petr Stehlik wrote:
> > And that is the key "backward compatibility".  If <script></script>
> > and <script /> are both legal XHTML, but the latter is not backward
> > compatible with browsers that only understand HTML, then we should be
> > using <script></script>.   We have everything to gain and nothing to
> > lose.  Where is the harm?  This one's a no-brainer.
> 
> OK, but my point was whether to include a special hack for the SCRIPT
> tag or if to use the David C.'s patch that enable </tag> everywhere. The
> former is definitely a hack while the latter is more clear but turns off
> one advantage of XHTML over HTML - a shorter code (shorter of the
> closing tags).

I already learnt the right answer the hard way. It's again the crappy IE
that makes David's patch for general <TAG></TAG> unusable. See why:
<br/> is generated as <br></br> and guess what IE renders - yes, two
<br>'s.

It's a scary browser. What a shame so many people use it.

So the patch must be modified to generate just the <SCRIPT> tag as <></>
and let the rest in XHTML </>. I wonder if this will be enough to get it
working.. 

Petr