[whatwg] Augmenting HTML parser to recognize new elements

Adam Barth w3c at adambarth.com
Wed Jan 18 13:47:17 PST 2012

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov at chromium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Ah, that's a good question. This also must be specified. It should
>> depend on the parent of the <content> element. If the parent is shadow
>> root or <table>, then it should make <tr> the child of <content>.
>> Otherwise, it should use foster parenting as usual.
> Oops, not "foster parenting", but "ignore" as you mentioned. Still
> getting through the details of the parsing spec.

There's also some subtly w.r.t. the pending character tokens.

More generally, I think we'd all be much more sane if the HTML parsing
algorithm was specified in the HTML living standard rather than
modified ad-hoc in a number of different documents.


>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
>>> What if content wrapped elements ignored by the parser. e.g.
>>> <content><tr>hi</tr></content>
>>> What should the content element include in that case?
>>> - Ryosuke
>>> On Jan 18, 2012 10:19 AM, "Dimitri Glazkov" <dglazkov at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> 'sup, Whatwg!
>>>> The new HTML elements in the shadow DOM spec
>>>> (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html)
>>>> and the nascent HTML templates spec (see it all explained here:
>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/explainer/index.html)
>>>> require tweaking of the HTML parsing behavior -- mostly the tree
>>>> construction bits.
>>>> A typical example would be specifying an insertion point (that's
>>>> <content> element) as child of a <table>:
>>>> <table>
>>>>    <content>
>>>>        <tr>
>>>>            ...
>>>>        </tr>
>>>>    </content>
>>>> </table>
>>>> Both <shadow> and <template> elements have similar use cases.
>>>> What would be the sane way to document such changes to the HTML parser
>>>> behavior? A list of modifications to tree construction modes in each
>>>> respective spec? Some "generic insertion point element" clause in the
>>>> HTML spec? Give me ideas.
>>>> Also -- what are the side effects of such a change? Surely, there's
>>>> something I am not thinking of.
>>>> :DG<

More information about the whatwg mailing list