[whatwg] [WA1] INS/DEL and omitted </p> tags
Ian Hickson
ian at hixie.ch
Fri Mar 10 17:07:51 PST 2006
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> Quoting Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen at peda.net>:
> > The Opera behavior cannot be implemented without having the knowledge that
> > an ins element cannot contain a p element.
>
> It can contain a 'p' element. Only not when its parent is a 'p' element.
Well, per HTML4 there's no rule, since it would be invalid content.
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> > >
> > > How should a UA parse the following markup snippet?
> > >
> > > <p>foo<ins><p>bar</ins>
> >
> > It should be parsed as:
> >
> > <p>
> > foo
> > <ins>
> > </ins>
> > </p>
> > <p>
> > bar
> > </p>
>
> That seems insane, the second p element is clearly intended to be within
> the ins element, and thus Mozilla's parsing makes much more sense (it
> also happens to match what an SGML parser would produce for HTML4).
I don't think it is "clearly indended" to be within the <ins> element.
Consider this (identical, from a parsing perspective) snippet:
<p>foo<em>foo
<p>barbar
What do you think should happen for that?
> Although, that is error handling behaviour, neither parsing method is
> likely to be what the author actually intended. It's more likely that
> the author intended something like the following, but didn't realise the
> end-tag for the first <p> element would be required in this case for it
> to work:
>
> <p>foo</p>
> <ins><p>bar</p></ins>
>
> Doing that, however, might be more difficult to implement and I know of
> no existing implementations that do.
Yeah, that would be ideal, but I don't know how to do it.
> > Basically, when the parsing section gets written, it'll be written to
> > match the behaviour that the most browsers do.
>
> Generally, for interoperability reasons, I'd agree to just specify what
> browsers actually implement, but I think this is one where sanity should
> win over pre-existing interoperability and I suggest you go with
> Mozilla's behaviour.
This is one case where Mozilla's behaviour really isn't compatible with
other browsers.
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, [ISO-8859-1] David Håsäther wrote:
> >
> > Basically, when the parsing section gets written, it'll be written to
> > match the behaviour that the most browsers do.
>
> Why not require end-tags for all non-empty elements?
How would that help?
--
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