[whatwg] <script type=""> and <style type=""> parsing

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Mon Jun 11 15:36:06 PDT 2007

On Sun, 21 May 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Based on http://testsuite.org/html/elements/script/001.htm and 
> http://testsuite.org/html/elements/style/001.htm and the results in 
> Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera it seems parsing can be made pretty 
> strict. The only real problem is <script> with the type="" attribute set 
> to the empty string. It seems all three browsers treat that as if it was 
> an ECMAScript/JavaScript type, while in fact it is not. Internet 
> Explorer handles the same situation with <style> correctly...
> Ian, perhaps you have statistics that show we don't have to worry about 
> <script type=""> and can make the specification to say that browsers 
> must ignore the content in that case?
> By the way, I was planning on filing bugs on Mozilla for both the 
> testcases, but couldn't find out what the right component would be. 
> Anyone with ideas?

On Mon, 22 May 2006, Joost 'AlthA' de Valk wrote:
> I've tested those two tests in WebKit nightly, and see that webkit fails 
> a few more than firefox does. I would be very interested in some 
> statistics as well :).

The statistics are depressing.

Anyway, I've defined (to some extent) the processing of type="" and 
language="". I'm not really sure exactly what more to say. If we get into 
much more detail, we'll start having to define the difference between 
JS1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5 with E4X, 1.6, 1.6 with E4X, 1.7, 1.7 
with E4X, JScript, JScript.Encode, and VBScript. At least. I'm not sure we 
want to go there (mostly because I have no idea what we should say).

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list