[whatwg] Test suite: Embedded content
lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Mon Nov 28 18:10:01 PST 2005
Blake Kaplan wrote:
> 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).
Ok, but how is equivalent markup handled in XHTML, where parsing
obviously can't switch to CDATA?
More information about the whatwg