[whatwg] Arbitrary HTML in option-elements
Olav Junker Kjær
olav at olav.dk
Tue Nov 30 13:38:44 PST 2004
Matthew Raymond wrote:
> I doubt that you'd see popular user agents implement support for
> undefined behavior unless there's a specific use case that becomes
Sure, but I think the use case for more than plain text in options is
pretty strong. Look at the toolbars in e.g. Microsoft Word, there is
lots of dropdowns, and almost all of them have icons beside the textual
And the spec mentions it: (section 2.18)
> Two possibilities are sensible: rendering the content normally, just
> as it would have been outside the form control; and rendering the
> initial value only, with the rest of the content not displayed (unless
> forced to appear through some CSS).
This implies that rendering e.g. img-tags in an option-element is an
optional feature. But in Appendix A it's clearly illegal. I think this
Generally, I think its a very good thing that the spec tries to define
how to handle invalid HTML. Undefined and optional behavior in
interpreting HTML is bad thing IMHO.
Maybe the rules for parsing invalid HTML (in HTML5) could be
generalized, something like:
- Unsupported element, or elements in a context where they are not
allowed because of the DTD, should be ignored. However, if the ignored
element has textual content, and the context allows pcdata, the content
should be rendered.
- Attributes with a value that is malformed or illegal according to the
spec should be ignored. Unknown or unsupported attributes should be ignored.
I think this is more or less consistent with current user agent
behavior, however it greatly reduces the amount of unspecified behavior.
Of course, following these rules, anything but text content should be
ignored in OPTION-elements.
Olav Junker Kjær
More information about the whatwg