[whatwg] [html5] bogus comment state
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Jan 5 11:39:44 PST 2006
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I haven't had time to investigate it fully (like inspecting the real DOM in the
> three browsers I was testing on). It seems that Internet Explorer presevers the
> nodes in some way (when looking at the innerHTML).
Yeah, IE creates empty element nodes for element tag names it doesn't
recognise. This leads to amusing things like tags called "/foo".
> It shows like a processing instruction though, not a comment. Firefox
> simply drops all processing instructions (or bogus comments) and you can
> not retrieve them in any way. Opera stores them in some quirky way. When
> looking at the innerHTML of the page I get things like: |<?
> target="test" content=""/>?>| for a processing instruction which looked
> like: |<? test>|. We'll fix that sometime when it gets more important
> and when it is clear what we're supposed to do.
The current proposal is to treat them like a simple comment. We could
treat them like a PI but that would require even more error states, since
we'd then have to distinguish </ foo > and <? foo > (spaces intentional).
Note that treating them as comments still leaves room for changes later as
we can just say that <? ... > is treated specially if we want to --
changing the comment node to a PI node, e.g. -- without breaking older
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> Before changing the way how Opera handles it, some way of behavior
> should be standardized.
Anne was referring to the current proposal in the spec:
> To me, it seems reasonable to drop invalid constructs like <? test>.
I agree. I think treating them as comments is better though.
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> That's not an invalid construct in HTML4,
It's not a conformant construct, though.
> it's a perfectly valid SGML processing instruction (it would not be
> well-formed in XML, however). It's just not at all well supported and
> has no defined meaning so it seems that something sensible will need to
> be defined for handling it in HTML5.
Indeed. See the current proposal for one possibility.
The current proposal is just a straw man, by the way. It, as everything
else in the draft, is very open to change.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg