I apologize if this gets posted twice... Is there a fix to get the Petal parser to respect <![CDATA[ ... ]]> and HTML Elements? Petal seems hell-bent on removing any CDATA tags and parsing data inside these supposedly "Protected Areas" and converting <,>,& and friends into &lt;,&gt;,&amp. I can't for the life of me figure this one out. Any help appreciated, Warren
Is there a fix to get the Petal parser to respect <![CDATA[ ... ]]> and HTML Elements? Petal seems hell-bent on removing any CDATA tags and parsing data inside these supposedly "Protected Areas" and converting <,>,& and friends into &lt;,&gt;,&amp. I can't for the life of me figure this one out. Any help appreciated, Warren
Hi On Sat 06-Nov-2004 at 03:07:08PM -0600, Warren Smith wrote: > I apologize if this gets posted twice... Your other address should be OK now> > Is there a fix to get the Petal parser to respect <![CDATA[ ... ]]> and > HTML Elements? > > Petal seems hell-bent on removing any CDATA tags and parsing data inside > these supposedly "Protected Areas" and converting <,>,& and friends into > &lt;,&gt;,&amp. I can't for the life of me figure this one > out. This has come up before with respect to javascript, what should petal do, not touch things in CDATA sections? The only problem with this is if you want to use some variables in a bit of embedded javascript. Chris -- -- Chris Croome <chris@...> web design http://www.webarchitects.co.uk/ web content management http://mkdoc.com/
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 03:05:19PM -0600, Warren Smith wrote: > Is there a fix to get the Petal parser to respect <![CDATA[ ... ]]> and > HTML Elements? > > Petal seems hell-bent on removing any CDATA tags and parsing data inside > these supposedly "Protected Areas" and converting <,>,& and friends into > &lt;,&gt;,&amp. I can't for the life of me figure this one > out. Can you give an example of what goes in and what comes out. I think a CDATA section is only "protected" in the sense that it's not necessary to escape &s and <s so <tag>[![CDATA[hello & good evening]]]</tag> is equivalent to <tag>hello & good evening</tag> At the end of the day a CDATA sections just makes it easy to insert a chunk of text without having to worry about escaping it. They are for the convenience of someone generating XML, they have no special meaning and the parser has no obligation to tell the application that this text here was originally a CDATA and this one wasn't, http://www.w3c.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#sec-cdata-sect Fergal(Continue reading)
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 12:50:59PM +0000, Chris Croome wrote: > This has come up before with respect to javascript, what should > petal do, not touch things in CDATA sections? I think this would be a good solution. > The only problem with this is if you want to use some variables in > a bit of embedded javascript. If this is the case, put that code outside of the CDATA section. Currently, I have to put most of my JavaScript into external files to prevent interpolation by Petal. I only leave what is needed for variable completion. William -- -- Knowmad Services Inc. http://www.knowmad.com
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 11:16:08AM -0500, William McKee wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 12:50:59PM +0000, Chris Croome wrote: > > This has come up before with respect to javascript, what should > > petal do, not touch things in CDATA sections? > > I think this would be a good solution. Petal's current behaviour is correct. Text that comes from CDATA should not be treated any differently than normal text. This XML doc <tag><![CDATA[a & b]]></tag> is exactly the same as this one <tag>a & b</tag> They have different representations but they have the same meaning. If you put the first one into this tool http://soapclient.com/XMLCanon.html it will output the second one. Any application that treats one differently from the other is broken. Here's a script that parses those 2 documents using XML::Parser and output's the parsed tree. As you can see, the parsed tree for each one is identical.(Continue reading)
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:00:34PM +0000, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 11:16:08AM -0500, William McKee wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 12:50:59PM +0000, Chris Croome wrote:
> > > This has come up before with respect to javascript, what should
> > > petal do, not touch things in CDATA sections?
> >
> > I think this would be a good solution.
>
> Petal's current behaviour is correct.
Fergal,
I have no doubt you are right regarding the behavior of Petal. However,
the correct behavior is not always the optimal behavior. Here's an
example of a JavaScript that will fail when passed through Petal:
<script type="text/Javascript" language="Javascript">
var d;
d = '1' & '1';
alert(d);
</script>
The '&' which does a comparison in the same way that Perl's own && gets
converted to &. Unfortunately, the browser does not treat this
entity as a comparison operator.
Any advice on how to make this work without using an external Javascript
file would be appreciated.
William
(Continue reading)
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:41:40PM -0500, William McKee wrote: > Fergal, > > I have no doubt you are right regarding the behavior of Petal. However, > the correct behavior is not always the optimal behavior. Here's an > example of a JavaScript that will fail when passed through Petal: > > <script type="text/Javascript" language="Javascript"> > var d; > d = '1' & '1'; > alert(d); > </script> > > The '&' which does a comparison in the same way that Perl's own && gets > converted to &. Unfortunately, the browser does not treat this > entity as a comparison operator. > > Any advice on how to make this work without using an external Javascript > file would be appreciated. That's definitely a problem but I don't see the connection with CDATA. I just tried <script type="text/Javascript" language="Javascript"> <![CDATA[ var d; d = '1' & '1'; alert(d); ]]> </script>(Continue reading)
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 09:00:12PM +0000, Fergal Daly wrote: > That's definitely a problem but I don't see the connection with CDATA. I > just tried If you comment out the CDATA sections, they will work (HTML Tidy even does this for you when it adds CDATA sections to inline Javascript). > <script type="text/Javascript" language="Javascript"> //<![CDATA[ > var d; > d = '1' & '1'; > alert(d); //]]> > </script> > I generally do > > <snip> > > Petal seems to leave that alone and it's the standard way of doing things > even when Petal isn't involved Ahhh, that's what Jean-Michel did to add better support for JavaScript. I remember him telling the list that he had made a release with better support. However, I'd since stopped using the // <!-- // --> comments since they are mostly unnecessary. Since that workaround is in place, it doesn't seem like it'd be hard to add a similar workaround for CDATA which is gaining more usage, esp since HTML Tidy wraps style tags and JavaScript sections in them. What(Continue reading)
Hi On Mon 08-Nov-2004 at 04:13:08PM -0500, William McKee wrote: > > I'd since stopped using the // <!-- // --> comments since they are > mostly unnecessary. They are potentially worse than unnecessary if you are producing XHTML: C.4. Embedded Style Sheets and Scripts Use external scripts if your script uses < or & or ]]> or --. Note that XML parsers are permitted to silently remove the contents of comments. Therefore, the historical practice of "hiding" scripts and style sheets within "comments" to make the documents backward compatible is likely to not work as expected in XML-based user agents. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_4 Chris -- -- Chris Croome <chris@...> web design http://www.webarchitects.co.uk/ web content management http://mkdoc.com/
RSS Feed3 | |
|---|---|
3 | |
1 | |
2 | |
2 | |
1 | |
1 | |
5 | |
1 | |
2 | |
8 | |
11 | |
3 | |
10 | |
19 | |
10 | |
8 | |
8 | |
5 | |
8 | |
12 | |
18 | |
25 | |
8 | |
9 | |
11 | |
12 | |
22 | |
30 | |
66 | |
17 | |
15 | |
3 | |
9 | |
36 | |
10 | |
12 | |
19 | |
21 | |
9 | |
18 |
