jg307 at cam.ac.uk
Sun Feb 5 03:41:09 PST 2006
Jim Ley wrote:
> On 2/5/06, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Jim Ley wrote:
>>> On 2/5/06, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> DOM 3 XPath is of course only defined for XML, whilst it's no trouble
>>> defining it for valid HTML, it's not currently, for this reason I
>>> would prefer just having a CSSSelector method and not bothering with
>>> an XPath one, defining XPath for HTML is a bit of a pain - indeed I'm
>>> not completely confident it's possible on an invalid HTML document
>>> until after the document has finished loading.
>> In practice it works fine in Mozilla for HTML which, given it's DOM
>> functionality, isn't so surprising since both XML and HTML end up
>> constructing a DOM.
> "in practice" isn't really good enough for a specification any more,
> it was when HTML 4.01 or DOM 1 or DOM 2 or CSS 1 or CSS 2 came out, it
> is no longer, and specifications are actually getting proper reviews
If it really is unspecified in HTML (even though a DOM is constructed) a
reasonable specification could be derived from the Mozilla behavior.
That is approximately the path that has been taken with <canvas>
(Safari), XMLHttpRequest (IE), HTML parsing (Mozilla, Safari, Opera) and
so on. Indeed firming up the specification of useful, implemented,
behaviors is one of the aims of the WHATWG.
More information about the whatwg