5 ms·

Some example code there: http://cdserv.wbut.ac.in/81-203-1773-4/workshop/imedia/chromeffects/overview/creating_chromeffects_in_html.htm http://cdserv.wbut.ac.in

Some example code there: http://cdserv.wbut.ac.in/81-203-1773-4/workshop/imedia/chromeffects/overview/creating_chromeffects_in_html.htm http://cdserv.wbut.ac.in/81-203-1773-4/workshop/imedia/chrom... <OBJECT ID="Chromeffects" WIDTH=512 HEIGHT=512 CLASSID="CLSID:8A2A7F99-09DA-11D1-B33A-00A0C90A8FB6">  </OBJECT>

majewsky 10y ago
I always love when my code shouts at me.
Asooka 10y ago
Is that an XML document in an HTML comment inside an OBJECT tag? eww
- est 10y ago
  Don't forget XML Data islands. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_XML_Data_Islands_in_Mozilla https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_XML_Data_Islands... You can write HTML literals directly in Javascript in an ancient version of Firefox I forgot its name it's similar to JSX Edit: It's called E4X. Thanks @woogley
  - woogley 10y ago
    E4X: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X
    - dorianm 10y ago
      And with examples: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X/Processing_XML_with_E4X https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X/Pro... It's crazy how similar this is with JSX
  - sdegutis 10y ago
    Something something history doomed to repeat something.
  - johnhenry 10y ago
    I don't think you are thinking of E4X -- it allowed one to convert XML strings into native objects, but I don't believe that it allowed for direct XML literals in Javascript as does JSX?
    - woogley 10y ago
      It did, as an alternative to XML('string') constructor. Check it out: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X/Processing_XML_with_E4X#Creating_an_XML_object https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X/Pro...
      - tbranyen 10y ago
        That is pretty mind blowing. Not such a revolutionary idea in the JS space after all.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- richardwhiuk 10y ago
  Not sure why that's so bad. It's well constrained, and parsable.
- dsp1234 10y ago
  eww This is no better or worse than: "Is that JavaScript in an HTML comment inside a SCRIPT tag?" Which is exactly what the original JavaScript implementation was[0]. The HTML comment was to prevent browsers that did not support specific tags from choking on them. And the OBJECT tag has always used it's child elements to give configuration for the external resource it represents. https://web.archive.org/web/20001101095326/http://www.javascripter.net/faq/hidingjs.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20001101095326/http://www.javasc...
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Could be worse. Back in the day, it was somewhat common to do inline JavaScript in HTML by: * Using a script tag, * Whose contents began with a JavaScript comment, * With the remainder of the JS-commented line beginning a CDATA block. Then at the end of the script you'd have another JS-commented line to end the CDATA block.

majewsky 10y ago

I always love when my code shouts at me.

Asooka 10y ago

Is that an XML document in an HTML comment inside an OBJECT tag? eww

est 10y ago
Don't forget XML Data islands. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_XML_Data_Islands_in_Mozilla https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_XML_Data_Islands... You can write HTML literals directly in Javascript in an ancient version of Firefox I forgot its name it's similar to JSX Edit: It's called E4X. Thanks @woogley
- woogley 10y ago
  E4X: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X
  - dorianm 10y ago
    And with examples: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X/Processing_XML_with_E4X https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X/Pro... It's crazy how similar this is with JSX
- sdegutis 10y ago
  Something something history doomed to repeat something.
- johnhenry 10y ago
  I don't think you are thinking of E4X -- it allowed one to convert XML strings into native objects, but I don't believe that it allowed for direct XML literals in Javascript as does JSX?
  - woogley 10y ago
    It did, as an alternative to XML('string') constructor. Check it out: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X/Processing_XML_with_E4X#Creating_an_XML_object https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Web/E4X/Pro...
    - tbranyen 10y ago
      That is pretty mind blowing. Not such a revolutionary idea in the JS space after all.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
richardwhiuk 10y ago
Not sure why that's so bad. It's well constrained, and parsable.
dsp1234 10y ago
eww This is no better or worse than: "Is that JavaScript in an HTML comment inside a SCRIPT tag?" Which is exactly what the original JavaScript implementation was[0]. The HTML comment was to prevent browsers that did not support specific tags from choking on them. And the OBJECT tag has always used it's child elements to give configuration for the external resource it represents. https://web.archive.org/web/20001101095326/http://www.javascripter.net/faq/hidingjs.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20001101095326/http://www.javasc...
ubernostrum 10y ago
Could be worse. Back in the day, it was somewhat common to do inline JavaScript in HTML by: * Using a script tag, * Whose contents began with a JavaScript comment, * With the remainder of the JS-commented line beginning a CDATA block. Then at the end of the script you'd have another JS-commented line to end the CDATA block.