Re: [tools] Generating XHTML-compliant Javascript with ValidatorTool

> All,
>
> As an exercise, I decided to change my response content type from
> text/html to application/xhtml+xml as we are truly attempting to emit
> XHTML in all cases. I decided to see what Firefox would say if we did this.
>
> I found that any template that uses the validator tool to generate
> Javascript form validation ended up creating code like this:
>
>    function validateMyForm(form) {
>      if (bCancel)
>          return true;
>      else
>  var formValidationResult;
>       formValidationResult = validateInteger(form) &&
> validateRequired(form) && validateMaxLength(form) && validateMask(form)
> && validateIntRange(form);
>     return (formValidationResult == 1);
>   }
>
> I have "xhtml" set to true in my (admittedly) old-style configuration:
>
> <toolbox>
>  <tool>
>    <key>validator</key>
>    <scope>request</scope>
>    <class>org.apache.velocity.tools.struts.ValidatorTool</class>
>  </tool>
>  ...
>  <xhtml>true</xhtml>
> </toolbox>
>
> ...but the code still emits '&&' as the operator with no escaping.
>
> It appears that a trivial fix for this is to call setCdata(true) on the
> validator before generating the dynamic javascript, and then the whole
> thing gets put into a CDATA section, so the XML parser does not complain.
>
> On the other hand, I really don't want to have to edit all of my
> templates just to add 'setCdata(true)' to fix this. I'd rather have
> ValidatorTool know that when in XHTML mode, the "&&" needs to be
> "&&" instead.
>
> Is the intent that XHTML content should always use CDATA sections (in
> which case I should just suck it up and updated my templates), or should
> it be considered a bug that XHTML doesn't either automatically trigger
> the use of CDATA sections OR the generation of "&&" instead of "&&"?
>
> Thanks,
> -chris
>