[whatwg] Test suite: Embedded content
mrbkap at mozilla.com
Mon Nov 28 17:58:25 PST 2005
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Why does it need to parse it differently depending on the mode? Since
> noembed is just hidden anyway, it really shouldn't matter how its
> content is parsed and parsing it like #PCDATA makes the most sense.
At least in Gecko, we parse the contents of <noembed>, <noscript>,
<noframes>, and <iframe> as CDATA when we're not going to be using their
contents because in the past, we've had lots of problems with authors
treating these tags like C's preprocessor directives, handling cases
like: <head><noscript><body>...</noscript><script>...</script><body> is
extremely difficult (and then preserving round-tripping for editor gets
to be a problem, and the list of problems goes on).
By treating the contents of these tags as CDATA, we're able to make most
people happy (though nesting <noscript>s doesn't quite work as expected).
More information about the whatwg