In message <4e8a36bad5tim(a)timil.com>
Tim Hill <tim(a)timil.com> wrote:
Christopher Bazley <cs99cjb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why NetSurf, which could easily recognise
> the text between it and </script>. Perhaps it is purism on the part of
> the developers?
Similarly, NetSurf displays the content of php tags if they (erroneously)
appear in a file of type HTML, e.g.:
<? include('file') ?>
I'm not sure of the situation of GSML which HTML was based on but in XML
(also based on GSML) that would be a processing instruction. The content
of that should not be displayed as they are directives to the processing
program. c.f. #pragma in C.
I too always thought that non-understood tags should be completely
omitted by 'ignorant' browsers and this is certainly true of others (O2,
The tags should be ignored but the content should be rendered. As an
<p>Here is a paragraph containging some <funk>unrecognised
Here the tag is unrecognised but the content is valid.
It is perfectly legitimate for a browser to recognise a tag and deal with
it by not rendering the content. That is probably what NetSurf should do
with the 'script' tag.
(\/)atthew )-(ambley : matthew(a)aether.demon.co.uk [ Public key : C991137B ]
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve
nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin