In article <f7712b7c0611221358p188f19bp1f79f9924541318b(a)mail.gmail.com>,
Christopher Bazley <cs99cjb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What I don't understand is why NetSurf, which could easily
the text between it and </script>. Perhaps it is purism on the part of
Similarly, NetSurf displays the content of php tags if they (erroneously)
appear in a file of type HTML, e.g.:
<? include('file') ?>
is displayed as
in NetSurf. That's a simple example, php code which generates (e.g.) a
page counter can look a mess.
I know that php does not belong in an html-typed file but for my own
convenience I have some <name>/php files RISC OS-typed as html. This
doesn't matter to my webspace as Apache (or whatever) seems interested
only in the .ext. (WebJames, on the other hand, understands RISC OS
I too always thought that non-understood tags should be completely
omitted by 'ignorant' browsers and this is certainly true of others (O2,
MIE and Ff though not Fresco which displays the whole <?...?>); I haven't
reported this as a bug because I find it's a semi-useful feature and
reminds me it's one of my 'hybrid' files. :-)
If it is going to show it at all, the whole <?...?> would perhaps make
more sense but I would prefer them to be ignored as I know by the /ext
that there's a bit of php in there somewhere.
Bug or Feature?