[Imps] [whatwg] Standard DOM Serialization? [was :Common Subset]
jg307 at cam.ac.uk
Mon Dec 11 09:25:40 PST 2006
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 2006, at 17:29, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> * For element start, write "<" followed by the element name,
>>> followed by attributes, followed by ">".
>> * For element end, write "</" followed by the element name, followed by
> Don't do that for elements which are always empty.
> Also, as Anne pointed out, there is a precise serialization defined for
So, does it make any sense to use the innerHTML serialization, along with a
similar json-based format as is used for the tokenizer tests for the parser
unittests. Something like:
"input":"some input string",
"errors":[list of parse errors],
"output":"innerhtml for resulting DOM"}
Since different implementations will report errors differently, I would imagine
a common testsuite would be useful for checking the correct number of errors are
produced. The big disadvantage of this format is the fact that the innerHTML
string will have to be both HTML escaped and json escaped, leading to a high
number of noise characters.
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
More information about the Implementors