An old idiom for getting very old browsers to ignore JavaScript blocks in HTML pages is to wrap the contents of the <script> element in HTML comments:
<script>
<!--
alert("Your browser supports JavaScript");
//-->
</script>
The rationale is that old JavaScriptless browsers will render as text the contents of the <script> element, so putting the JavaScript in an HTML comment makes the browser have nothing to render.
A modern browser, on the other hand, will see the <script> element and parse its contents as JavaScript. Consequently, the comments need to be valid JavaScript. The closing HTML comment (-->) is ignored by the JavaScript parser because it is preceded by a JavaScript line-comment (//).
My question is, how does the opening HTML comment (<!--) not cause the JavaScript parser to fail? I have heard from various people that the opening HTML comment is valid JavaScript. If it's true that the opening comment is evaluated as JavaScript, what does it do when it executes?
It seemed to be something exciting, an expression that might have a special meaning (<, ! and -- are all operators in Javascript), but without operands it does not make sense.
Turns out that <!-- is simply equivalent to // in Javascript, it is used to comment out one line.
It is a language feature that does not seem to be well-documented though, and might have been added for the simple reason to support this "hack". And now we have to live with it not to break backwards compatibility.
Needless to say that while this is a funny thing to know, this type of commenting should not be used in real code that other people might happen to read and work with.
The "hack" is also obsolete, because now every browser understands the <script> tag and does not display its contents (even if Javascript is turned off). Personally, in most cases I try avoid writing Javascript directly into HTML anyways and always load my Javascript as an external resource to separate HTML and Javascript.
In another StackOverflow question, #MathiasBynens gave what I believe is the answer:
Why is the HTML comment open block valid JavaScript?
In short, apparently, this is a non-standard addition to browser-based JS engines that allows these <!-- and --> as single-line comment markers like the // in standard JS.
Related
I have some data wanted to be represented using datable with jQuery. As you can see, it is easy to use by including totally two, css and javascript, files. Since, as my project requirement, neither I include any file in project folder or somewhere nor I’m able to connect to the Internet, I need to escape all javascript code into a string variable then use it between <script></script> tags. To do so, I make use of the website. I think it works pretty well since its result doesn’t yield any compiler error or warning. Whenever I include it as,
<script type=\"text/javascript\" language=\"javascript\" src=\"https://cdn.datatables.net/1.10.19/js/jquery.dataTables.min.js\"></script>
it works. But when I put the content of the jquery.dataTables.min.js into a string variable by escaping via the website, I get the following error.
44th line’s the following part is hightlighted with the cross end symbol on chrome. (I’m not able to put whole code here becuase SO doesn’t permit it.)
.warn("jQuery.Deferred exception: "+e.message,e.stack,t)},E.readyException=function(e){g.setTimeout(function(){throw e})};var $=E.Deferred();function F(){v.removeEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",F),g.removeEventListener("load",F),E.ready()}E.fn.ready=function(e){return $.then(e)["catch"](function(e){E.readyException(e)}),this},E.extend({isReady:!1,readyWait:1,ready:function(e){(!0===e?--E.readyWait:E.isReady)||(E.isReady=!0)!==e&&0<--E.readyWait||$.resolveWith(v,[E])}}),E.ready.then=$.then,"complete"===v.readyState||"loading"!==v.readyState&&!v.documentElement.doScroll?g.setTimeout(E.ready):(v.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",F),g.addEventListener("load",F));var z=function(e,t,n,r,i,o,a){var s=0,u=e.length,l=null==n;if("object"===T(n))for(s in i=!0,n)z(e,t,s,n[s],!0,o,a);else if(void 0!==r&&(i=!0,x(r)||(a=!0),l&&(a?(t.call(e,r),t=null):(l=t,t=function(e,t,n){return l.call(E(e),n)})),t))for(;s<u;s++)t(e[s],n,a?r:r.call(e[s],s,t(e[s],n)));return i?e:l?t.call(e):u?t(e[0],n):o},_=/^-ms-/,U=/-([a-z])/g;function V(e,t){return t.toUpperCase()}function X(e){return e.replace(_,"ms-").replace(U,V)}var Q=function(e){return 1===e.nodeType||9===e.nodeType||!+e.nodeType};function Y(){this.expando=E.expando+Y.uid++}Y.uid=1,…………….. STACKOVERFLOW DOESN’T PERMIT LONG TEXT…………………..function(e,t,n){var r,i;if(e&&e.preventDefault&&e.handleObj)return r=e.handleObj,E(e.delegateTarget).off(r.namespace?r.origType+"."+r.namespace:r.origType,r.selector,r.handler),this;if("object"==typeof e){for(i in e)this.off(i,t,e[i]);return this}return!1!==t&&"function"!=typeof t||(n=t,t=void 0),!1===n&&{return g.$===E&&(g.$=xt),e&&g.jQuery===E&&(g.jQuery=bt),E},e||(g.jQuery=g.$=E),E});
What’s wrong with my idea? Cannot I apply my idea?
If I execute this in the IE 11 console:
document.location.href="a&b";
I get an error saying:
Not found - The requested URL /a&b was not found on this server.
But should it not rather complain about a&b not being found? The URL which happens to contain a HTML entity seems to be interpreted as HTML, despite nothing here actually being connected to HTML.
I came across this while having a GET parameter named copy_from in an onclick attribute, and despite escaping the ampersand correctly (©_from=), the final URL showed up with a copyright character in it. (It works in IE by escaping the ampersand twice, but then it fails in other browsers.)
Am I missing something or is this an IE bug?
I do think this is a bug. If, in javascript you have specified '/a&b', then the URL requested should have nothing to do with HTML entities. This is supported by the fact that most browsers try to redirect you to '/a&b', as expected.
I've seen lots of inconsistencies between browsers like this before.
It's probably the kind of thing someone (with lots more time than I) could find a way to exploit.
If the document is XHTML - and interpreted as XML - however, you are required to use a CDATA section around the inline javascript which includes the ampersands. e.g. When is a CDATA section necessary within a script tag?.
In practice, this is rarely done, which is why this is probably a bug.
I noticed in some legacy code the following pattern:
<script>
<!--
// code
// -->
</script>
After some research, this appears to be a very old technique for hiding the contents of script elements from the DOM when the browser did not support the <script> element. More information can be found here.
My concern is this: why does <!-- not throw a Syntax Error? I've found on whatwg.org's website that <!-- should be functionally equivalent to //, and it links off to a snippet from the ECMAScript grammar about comments. The problem is, <!-- isn't defined by that grammar at all.
So this seems like undefined behavior that happens to be implemented by all major browsers. Is there a specification that allows for this, or is this a backwards-compatibility hack that people are bringing forward?
Officially: Because there's specific handling for it in the HTML spec. E.g., it's a "by fait" thing. It's not a JavaScript thing, you won't find it in the JavaScript grammar.
Unofficially, it would appear that at least some JavaScript engines handle it intrinsically, sometimes in ways that make what I believe is valid JavaScript invalid. For instance, on V8 in a browser, this fails:
eval("var a = 1; var n = 3; console.log(a<!--n);")
...with Unexpected end of input. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't, but I'm not a parsing lawyer. I'd expect it to log false to the console, like this does:
eval("var a = 1; var n = 3; console.log(a<! --n);")
// Note the space -------------------------^
Side note: Meteor's jsparser agrees with me, copy and paste just the bit inside the double quotes into it.
Note that the characters <! do not appear in the specification, nor does there appear to be anything near any of the 70 occurrences of the word "comment" in there, nor is it anywhere in the comment grammar, so it wouldn't seem to be an explicit in-spec exception. It's just something at least some JavaScript engines do to avoid getting messed up by people doing silly things. No great surprise. :-)
It is defined by the W3's docs for the user agents:
The JavaScript engine allows the string "<!--" to occur at the start of a SCRIPT element, and ignores further characters until the end of the line.
So browsers follow these standards
I see the following HTML code used a lot to load jQuery from a content delivery network, but fall back to a local copy if the CDN is unavailable (e.g. in the Modernizr docs):
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.6.1/jquery.js"></script>
<script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="js/libs/jquery-1.6.1.min.js">\x3C/script>')</script>
My question is, why is the last < character in the document.write() statement replaced with the escape sequence \x3C? < is a safe character in JavaScript and is even used earlier in the same string, so why escape it there? Is it just to prevent bad browser implementations from thinking the </script> inside the string is the real script end tag? If so are there really any browsers out there that would fail on this?
As a follow-on question, I've also seen a variant using unescape() (as given in this answer) in the wild a couple of times too. Is there a reason why that version always seems to substitute all the < and > characters?
When the browser sees </script>, it considers this to be the end of the script block (since the HTML parser has no idea about JavaScript, it can't distinguish between something that just appears in a string, and something that's actually meant to end the script element). So </script> appearing literally in JavaScript that's inside an HTML page will (in the best case) cause errors, and (in the worst case) be a huge security hole.
That's why you somehow have to prevent this sequence of characters to appear. Other common workarounds for this issue are "<"+"/script>" and "<\/script>" (they all come down to the same thing).
While some consider this to be a "bug", it actually has to happen this way, since, as per the specification, the HTML part of the user agent is completely separate from the scripting engine. You can put all kinds of things into <script> tags, not just JavaScript. The W3C mentions VBScript and TCL as examples. Another example is the jQuery template plugin, which uses those tags as well.
But even within JavaScript, where you could suggest that such content in strings could be recognized and thus not be treated as ending tags, the next ambiguity comes up when you consider comments:
<script type="text/javascript">foo(42); // call the function </script>
– what should the browser do in this case?
And finally, what about browsers that don't even know JavaScript? They would just ignore the part between <script> and </script>, but if you gave different semantics to the character sequence </script> based on the browsers knowledge of JavaScript, you'd suddenly have two different results in the HTML parsing stage.
Lastly, regarding your question about substituting all angle brackets: I'd say at least in 99% of the cases, that's for obfuscation, i.e. to hide (from anti-virus software, censoring proxies (like in your example (nested parens are awesome)), etc.) the fact that your JavaScript is doing some HTML-y stuff. I can't think of good technical reasons to hide anything but </script>, at least not for reasonably modern browsers (and by that, I mean pretty much anything newer than Mosaic).
Some parsers handle the < version as the closing tag and interpret the code as
<script>
window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="js/libs/jquery-1.6.1.min.js">
</script>
\x3C is hexadecimal for <. Those are interchangable within the script.
I have an ASP.NET MVC project that uses some simple AJAX functionality through jQuery's $.get method like so:
$.get(myUrl, null, function(result) {
$('#myselector').html(result);
});
The amount of content is relatively low here -- usually a single div with a short blurb of text. Sometimes, however, I am also injecting some javascript into the page. At some point when I dynamically include script into content that was itself dynamically added to the page, the script still runs, but it ceases to be available to the debugger. In VS2008, any breakpoints are ignored, and when I use the "debugger" statement, I get a messagebox saying that "no source code is available at this location." This fails both for the VS2008 debugger and the Firebug debugger in Firefox. I have tried both including the script inline in my dynamic content and also referencing a separate js file from this dynamic content -- both ways seemed to result in script that's unavailable to the debugger.
So, my question is twofold:
Is there any way to help the debugger recognize the existence of this script?
If not, what's the best way to include scripts that are used infrequently and in dynamically generated content in a way that is accessible to the debuggers?
I can not comment yet, but I can maybe help answer. As qwerty said, firefox console can be the way to go. I'd recommend going full bar and getting firebug. It hasn't ever missed code in my 3 years using it.
You could also change the way the injected javascript is added and see if that effects the debugger you're using. (I take it you're using Microsoft's IDE?).
In any case, I find the best way to inject javascript for IE is to put it as an appendChild in the head. In the case that isn't viable, the eval function (I hate using it as much as you do) can be used. Here is my AJAX IE fixer code I use. I use it for safari too since it has similar behavior. If you need that too just change the browser condition check (document.all for IE, Safari is navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase() == 'safari';).
function execajaxscripts(obj){
if(document.all){
var scripts = obj.getElementsByTagName('script');
for(var i=0; i<scripts.length; i++){
eval(scripts[i].innerHTML);
}
}
}
I've never used jquery, I preferred prototype then dojo but... I take it that it would look something like this:
$.get(myUrl, null, function(result) {
$('#myselector').html(result);
execajaxscripts(result);
});
The one problem is, eval debug errors may not be caught since it creates another instance of the interpreter. But it is worth trying.. and otherwise. Use a different debugger :D
This might be a long shot, but I don't have access to IE right now to test.
Try naming the anonymous function, e.g.:
$.get(myUrl, null, function anon_temp1(result) {
$('#myselector').html(result);
});
I'm surprised firebug is not catching the 'debugger' statement. I've never had any problems no matter how complicated the JS including method was
If this is javascript embedded within dynmically generated HTML, I can see where that might be a problem since the debugger would not see it in the initial load. I am surprised that you could put it into a seperate .js file and the debugger still failed to see the function.
It seems you could define a function in a seperate static file, nominally "get_and_show" (or whatever, possibly nested in a namespace of sorts) with a parameter of myUrl, and then call the function from the HTML. Why won't that trip the breakpoint (did you try something like this -- the question is unclear as to whether the reference to the .js in the dynamic HTML was just a func call, or the actual script/load reference as well)? Be sure to first load the external script file from a "hard coded" reference in the HTML file? (view source on roboprogs.com/index.html -- loads .js files, then runs a text insertion func)
We use firebug for debug javascript, profile requests, throw logs, etc.
You can download from http://getfirebug.com/
If firebug don't show your javascript source, post some url to test your example case.
I hope I've been of any help!
If you add // # sourceURL=foo.js to the end of the script that you're injecting then it should show up in the list of scripts in firebug and webkit inspector.
jQuery could be patched to do this automatically, but the ticket was rejected.
Here's a related question: Is possible to debug dynamic loading JavaScript by some debugger like WebKit, FireBug or IE8 Developer Tool?