Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I came across a scenario where giving a script element an id attribute would solve a problem easily. However, after reading about the script element at w3schools and quirksmode, it seems doing so could have some unforeseen consequences.
Has anyone come across any of these issues with browsers such as Chrome, Safari, FF3 up and IE 7 up?
It’s fine in all current browsers.
The only browser that got
<script id>wrong was Netscape 4, which we stopped caring about a long, long time ago.That quirksmode page seems to be badly out of date, what with its use of
languageattributes, script<!--hiding, andapplication/x-javascript. Its advice about avoiding<script>in the<body>(and putting it in<head>instead) is at odds with today’s encouraged practices.If we’re talking
<script>attribute compatibility problems:deferdoesn’t work everywhere so don’t rely on it;charsetdoesn’t work everywhere, and neither does the charset parameter on the served script’s Content-Type, so your script charset had better match the page;typeshould always betext/javascriptand not one of the non-working alternatives the pedants who wrote RFC 4329 would like you to use.