Highlight <script> and <style> tags better.

[cyberdummy]

Fixes #76.

[kylethebaker]

This is an essential PR for me, without it I end up with the same syntax highlighting as if I did set filetype=html which isn't too friendly on the JS side of things. With the PR I get the proper js highlighting inside of the script tags.

[adriaanzon]

The <script> and <style> tags were actually intentionally left out, to let the html.vim script do the highlighting of javascript and css. Can you attach a screenshot of the differences?

Also, are you using https://github.com/pangloss/vim-javascript or the default one shipped with vim?

[adriaanzon]

This lacks the \_[^>]* from s:register_language(), it's for maintaining the highlighting when the tag contains other, unrelated attributes.

However I think the s:register_language() function can be reused to highlight <script> and <style> as well, since it's not that different. I can have a further look at this too when I find some time

[kylethebaker]

@adriaanzon Here is a screenshot of the different modes I experience: https://i.imgur.com/S1r6sxF.png

I am using https://github.com/jelera/vim-javascript-syntax but I get the same results using the default vim syntax highlighting.

If I use vim-javascript I get correct syntax highlighting without the pull request, and this syntax also effects the javascript syntax highlighting when filetype=html.

So I think my issue is that my html syntax highlighting is no good for javascript. If I had to take a guess I would say that the reason this PR fixes it is that it explicitly registers the javascript syntax versus relying on html.

[mbriggs]

what is the current status on this? is there a plan to merge at some point?

[despreston]

is this dead?

[adriaanzon]

The current highlighting is fine for me, so I don't really want to hurt the loading time by sourcing syntax/javascript.vim and syntax/css.vim an extra time. However, I would be fine with an option variable that enables this behavior.