[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
lynx-dev non-bug in non-comments (was bug in comments process)
From: |
Klaus Weide |
Subject: |
lynx-dev non-bug in non-comments (was bug in comments process) |
Date: |
Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:11:39 -0500 (CDT) |
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Klaus Weide wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Klaus Weide wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > http://www.brunching.com/features/feature-disneywarnings.html
> > > >
> > > > By the way, this is apparently parsed differently with -prettysrc,
> >
> > THEY ARE NOT NORMAL HTML COMMENTS. As I already wrote.
>
> Yes, reading HTML 4.0 specs I understood that.
And you still want to treat them as comments anyway.
> SGML comments in the <script>
> are used to delimit scripts from old browsers that don't know the <script>
> attribute to prevent rendering it by them. But ..
> Experimenting with NS 4.51 showed that:
> * it renders original file without problems
> * removing terminating --> makes that page blank
It's broken then - not a big surprise.
> * removing both <!-- and --> makes the page to look similar to what the lynx
> does (the same parts of script are shown)
>
> I didn't tested IE, but IMO it will do the same. And seems that NS is wiser
> than lynx in "skipping" scripts.
It is violating the specs, it is broken. I don't know why you want to
call that wise. I call lynx wiser for following the specs here.
No, I don't know what IE does, it doesn't really matter. How often
do you see pages that are broken in this way? I don't think one page
is enough for breaking parsing, just to be "compatible".
Since you are speculating, let me speculate, too: IE does not do the
same, and that's the reason why we don't see these errors more often;
and when we see them, it's a quite reliable warning "you are entering
a site on which many and various things are broken".
Actually, I think they do it on purpose, they're some kind of comedians
after all... Together with the link that just says "Click Here", but
when I actually tried to follow the link, I was directed to load more
than 8KB of scripts, pictures, and whatnot in a file labeled as text/plain,
which, when finally decoded, yielded the all-important message (one line):
There was an error processing your click-thru. We apologize for the
inconvenience.
It's a bit too obvious, nobody can manage to screw a page up so much
just by accident, right? ...
> May be this behaviour should be simulated by
> the lynx (ie handle any "comments" in scripts as comments and skip any
> non-commented stuff)?
But they aren't comments. Only bad things come from treating them as
such. Instead of looking for "</SCRIPT>", you want to look for
the end of a "comment" (or both). Do you have any reason to assume
that misleading "--" occurs less often in SCRIPT content than a bogus
"</SCRIPT>"? You know that lynx has various modes for detecting comment
ends, which are necessary for some authors' broken comments - if these are
necessary for "real" comments, do you think reliable detection of the
intended end of a comment-like non-comment (which validation against
HTML 4.0 cannot catch if they are broken) will be easier?
> Can anybody try that page in IE (and making modiifcations I made to it too)?
>
> Now I understand that my patch made things worth (so it shouldn't be
> applied), but seems that we can place 'fixing handling of comments in
> <script>' to our TODO list (seems that major number of pages use commented
> scripts).
Then we also need to place immediately after that 'undoing the "fix" when
the next version of a Netscape browser comes out and has correct handling
of comment-lookalikes in <script>'.
Klaus
- Re: lynx-dev saving-options problem, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev saving-options problem, Doug Kaufman, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev saving-options problem, Philip Webb, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev saving-options problem, Leonid Pauzner, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev saving-options problem : why, Philip Webb, 1999/07/29
- lynx-dev bug in comments process, Eduardo Chappa L., 1999/07/29
- Re: lynx-dev bug in comments process, Klaus Weide, 1999/07/29
- Re: lynx-dev bug in comments process, Klaus Weide, 1999/07/30
- Re: lynx-dev bug in comments process, Vlad Harchev, 1999/07/31
- Re: lynx-dev bug in comments process, Klaus Weide, 1999/07/31
- Re: lynx-dev bug in comments process, Vlad Harchev, 1999/07/31
- lynx-dev non-bug in non-comments (was bug in comments process),
Klaus Weide <=
- Re: lynx-dev saving-options problem : why, Leonid Pauzner, 1999/07/29