<XML:SCRIPT>

[Simon St.Laurent]

David Megginson wrote:
>By far the best solution is for developers to keep their scripts out
>of line and point to them -- that lets each language (programming or
>markup) be represented using its natural syntax.  The advantages are
>quite significant:
>[...plausible advantages snipped...]

I see you like to keep me cranky!  While the recommendation that code and 
content be kept separate is indeed appropriate for many applications, it 
doesn't make sense in every case.  Interface components within web browsers 
are rarely generic code divorced from abstract content; the code and content 
tend to be much more closely intertwined partners, completely dependent on 
each other for proper operation.  

Keeping scripts separate is indeed useful when it's generic and reusable code; 
keeping them separate when they are tightly bound to a particular document 
instance is much more of a hassle than it's worth, in my strongly-felt 
opinion.  (Keep in mind that I did Dynamic HTML: A Primer before XML: A Primer 
appeared on the radar screen.)

That said, programmers will be stuck using the 
even-more-grotesque-than-comments CDATA marked section for precisely those 
instances and we'll have to deal with it.

Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)