[whatwg] Comment Syntax and Parsing
Ian Hickson
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Jan 24 15:13:37 PST 2006
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> > > PA<!- <!-->SS --> | "- <!" | PASS -->
> >
> > Comment should be "- <!--" IMHO. It's still a bogus comment (in HTML5
> > nomenclature), the "--" part is irrelevant.
>
> Ok, so if a comment only starts with '<!' then it ends at the first '>' only
> (ignoring any '--'), but if a comment starts with '<!--' then it must end with
> '-->'.
Right. They end up in different parse states ("bogus comment" or "bogus
tag" or something, vs "comment" or something). This is for compatibility
with existing UAs -- basically it's not a comment really, just a malformed
tag that happens to be turned into a Comment node in the DOM.
> > > PA<!-- > FAIL -- >SS | " > FAIL " | PASS
> >
> > Disagree. The terminator should be "-->", not "-- S* >". I don't see any
> > good reason to have "-- S* >".
>
> I was working on the assumption that the comment would end at the first
> occurance of '>' while in the comment end state, but that whitespace
> would be ignored while searching for it. Several browsers already
> handle it like that including Mozilla, Opera and Safari (except in
> Opera, the comment contained " > FAIL -"). Although IE, OmniWeb and
> iCab failed.
Really? In my testing, browsers didn't reliably do this. Were you testing
standards mode or quirks mode? Did you have the potential to be hitting
unexpected-EOF-reparse behaviour, or was it definitely the first-parse
behaviour?
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg
mailing list