[xwiki-devs] [proposal] Establish/Codify a best practice of putting all javascript in the <head> of the document.
13 Jun
2010
13 Jun
'10
9:31 p.m.
I would like to see a (written) best practice of putting all javascript content into the
head of the
XHTML document.
Reason 1:
Moving all script into the head makes it easier to find and makes impossible bad (and
often non WCAG
compliant) practices such as attaching script to xml attributes.
It makes it less of a jungle.
Reason 2:
If we have no script in the body of any documents then users can implement filters which
remove any
script after the </head> tag. This would make script injection certifiably
impossible.
WDYT?
Caleb
14 Jun
14 Jun
6:55 a.m.
Hi Caleb,
On 06/13/2010 10:31 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
I would like to see a (written) best practice of
putting all javascript content into the head of the
XHTML document.
Reason 1:
Moving all script into the head makes it easier to find and makes impossible bad (and
often non WCAG
compliant) practices such as attaching script to xml attributes.
It makes it less of a jungle.
Reason 2:
If we have no script in the body of any documents then users can implement filters which
remove any
script after the</head> tag. This would make script injection certifiably
impossible.
WDYT?
Let's say I have a JavaScript component that is configurable and has
lots of parameters. I'm including the code of this component using a
script tag in the head but I want to invoke it multiple times with
different parameters inside the body tag. The parameters of each
instance depend on content that was previously generated in the document
body. How would you do that without using script tags inside the body?
Thanks,
Marius
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
11:26 a.m.
Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
Hi Caleb,
On 06/13/2010 10:31 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Good point. There are situations where it's unreasonably hard to comply with a best
practice.
My Invitation preview code contains style information in style attributes the code.
That is because the email content contains style information and to remove it would make
it not a true preview.
In such cases I think we just need to acknowledge that best practices don't fit every
single situation.
If there were an XSS filter, the filter would have to understand an HTML comment in the
head which told it that
the page was to be treated differently.
I don't think that we should avoid codifying this just because some use cases are
unable to comply.
Caleb
I would like to see a (written) best practice of
putting all javascript content into the head of the
XHTML document.
Reason 1:
Moving all script into the head makes it easier to find and makes impossible bad (and
often non WCAG
compliant) practices such as attaching script to xml attributes.
It makes it less of a jungle.
Reason 2:
If we have no script in the body of any documents then users can implement filters which
remove any
script after the</head> tag. This would make script injection certifiably
impossible.
WDYT?
Let's say I have a JavaScript component that is configurable and has
lots of parameters. I'm including the code of this component using a
script tag in the head but I want to invoke it multiple times with
different parameters inside the body tag. The parameters of each
instance depend on content that was previously generated in the document
body. How would you do that without using script tags inside the body?
Thanks,
Marius
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
12:25 p.m.
On 06/13/2010 09:31 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
I would like to see a (written) best practice of
putting all javascript content into the head of the
XHTML document.
Reason 1:
Moving all script into the head makes it easier to find and makes impossible bad (and
often non WCAG
compliant) practices such as attaching script to xml attributes.
It makes it less of a jungle.
Reason 2:
If we have no script in the body of any documents then users can implement filters which
remove any
script after the</head> tag. This would make script injection certifiably
impossible.
WDYT?
Even if it's not possible to enforce it everywhere, I still think that
it should be a written best practice which should be followed as often
as possible. It's good for the quality of the code, it's less messy, it
makes it easier to find places where javascript is written.
As for code depending on existing content, a practice which works in
most cases is to use certain classes which are used in an
xwiki:dom:loaded script. Even something as complex as the WYSIWYG
initialization might be done with an XML comment or a processing
instruction, which can be parsed (JSON).
<?xwiki-wysiwyg
{
hookId: 'abc',
cacheId: 'xyz',
plugins: ['font', 'color', 'table']
}
?>
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
5208
days inactive
5209
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu