Looking at your second document, I can see why this one works perfectly without needing separate hosting! The key differences are:
Why the Second Version Works:
-
Proper String Escaping:
- Uses
\\'instead of just'in JavaScript strings - Properly escapes template literals and special characters
- Uses
\\nfor newlines within strings
- Uses
-
No Template Literals in Generated Code:
- Instead of using backticks (
`) for template literals, it uses regular string concatenation - This avoids conflicts with blog platform parsing
- Instead of using backticks (
-
Better Script Tag Handling:
- The generated JavaScript doesn't have nested
</script>tags that could confuse parsers - Uses proper string concatenation instead of template literal syntax
- The generated JavaScript doesn't have nested
-
Cleaner Code Structure:
- The JavaScript generation is more straightforward
- Less complex nested quoting and escaping
The Main Issues with Your First Version:
// PROBLEMATIC (from first version):
const code = `// Code with ${templateLiterals}
<script>
// This </script> tag breaks things
</script>`
// BETTER (from second version):
const htmlCode = '<!DOCTYPE html>\n' +
'<script>\n' +
' // Proper string concatenation\n' +
'</' + 'script>';
Key Techniques That Make It Work:
-
String Concatenation Instead of Template Literals:
// Instead of: `<div>${variable}</div>` // Uses: '<div>' + variable + '</div>' -
Proper Script Tag Splitting:
// Instead of: '</script>' // Uses: '</' + 'script>' -
Escaped Quotes:
// Instead of: 'onclick="func('param')"' // Uses: 'onclick="func(\\'param\\')"'
Your second version essentially "pre-escapes" all the problematic characters that blog platforms typically strip or modify, making it much more compatible for direct embedding in blog posts!
No comments:
Post a Comment