Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 44969 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2011 21:32:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jan 2011 21:32:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 87715 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2011 21:32:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 87487 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2011 21:32:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 87478 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jan 2011 21:32:09 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:32:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [76.96.30.17] (HELO qmta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.30.17) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:32:00 +0000 Received: from omta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.12]) by qmta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sMRo1f0060FhH24AAMXeo9; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:31:38 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.201] ([69.143.109.145]) by omta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sMXZ1f00X38FjT18UMXbMy; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:31:36 +0000 Message-ID: <4D2634B4.9090407@christopherschultz.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:31:32 -0500 From: Christopher Schultz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: Security container behavior toward .js file reference References: <08382548D50D3049BD5599E1E3146B3411AA434672@exgtmb06.nam.nsroot.net> In-Reply-To: <08382548D50D3049BD5599E1E3146B3411AA434672@exgtmb06.nam.nsroot.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Barry, On 1/6/2011 1:16 PM, Propes, Barry L wrote: > I'm experiencing (what I think is) a weird problem regarding a > javascript reference file when accessed across the security > container. What do you mean "across the security container"? John Lennon really got weird toward the end, huh? > For several years, I've had some manual breadcrumb links written in > each separate JSP file. So I thought I'd more easily consolidate into > a .js file and just reference the link in each page that way. So you went from server-side dynamic breadcrumb-trails to client-side ones built using Javascript? Yikes! Might I recommend using a JSP include? > e.g. Try: In HTML4, "language" is deprecated because it never had any well-defined values. From http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html: " language = cdata [CI] Deprecated. This attribute specifies the scripting language of the contents of this element. Its value is an identifier for the language, but since these identifiers are not standard, this attribute has been deprecated in favor of type. " > It now prompts me if I want to save it (in IE) or in Firefox tries to display the javascript contents. No content type = undefined behavior, though the server should have been serving .js files as text/javascript. Check with a protocol sniffer to see if that happened. You probably have comments at the top of the file which make MSIE do foolish things because it always tries to guess content-type from content. > To me this is odd because I already have a .js reference that's been > in there for several years, and the container never balked at that. What does that reference look like? The container is unlikely to balk at it since it never considers is. In these cases, the /clients/ are balking. > I'm not altogether positive, but perhaps it's the fact that I used > some document.write methods to write them into the file? Although I > wouldn't think that would really be any different, but this is puzzling > behavior to me. Why are you using document.write to add