Closed
Bug 270552
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
Support alternate syntax for att={i}
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, enhancement)
Core
JavaScript Engine
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
INVALID
People
(Reporter: nrm, Unassigned)
References
()
Details
Could SpiderMonkey support as an E4X extension (or as a hack): var foo = <tag att="{i}">bar</tag>; Scripters are almost certain to type that instead of: var foo = <tag att={i}>bar</tag>; in an attempt to create well-formed "inline" XML. How hard have we all struggled to be good XML syntax people and leave bad old tag soup behind? Now we should trip over a new special case that operates against our hard-won rigour? I appreciate that standards-wise an att can hold "{i}" (3 chars) in pure XML. There is alternate syntax if that unusual special case is required: var foo = <tag att="{i}">bar</tag>; not to mention: var foo = XML(); foo.tag = "bar"; foo.tag.@att = "{i}"; or even as a further hack (since inline XML is not true XML anyway): var foo = <tag att='{i}'>bar</tag>? using shell interpolation semantics, but that risks more tag soup-ness. Most Windows scripters wouldn't know shell interpolation if it bit them. Is att="{i}" feasible? - N.
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
Note that Netscape in the old days (3 and 4, IIRC) supported JS entities: <foo attr="&{bar+baz};">, e.g. This is not a core JS engine RFE, and I'm not likely to do it. If it's of interest to WHATWG folks, I'm sure I'll hear about that. /be
Assignee: brendan → general
Component: JavaScript Engine → DOM: Level 0
Updated•15 years ago
|
Assignee: general → nobody
QA Contact: pschwartau → general
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
E4X is on your side.
Assignee: nobody → general
Component: DOM: Core & HTML → JavaScript Engine
QA Contact: general → general
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
This is not a JS engine bug. Nigel (RIP) was clearly asking for HTML attribute values to be parsed for JS expressions enclosed in braces, and those expressions evaluated. This is not the place to propose such a change. Try http://whatwg.org/ and http://w3.org/. I'm going with INVALID lacking a draft spec from one of those places. /be
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•