[whatwg] Test suite: Embedded content

Lachlan Hunt 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?

Lachlan Hunt

More information about the whatwg mailing list