W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2008

[Bug 5752] Parsing should be specified for future updates

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:05:59 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1K7UW7-0003me-V7@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5752





--- Comment #4 from Rob Burns <rob@robburns.com>  2008-06-14 12:05:59 ---
> If we are to add new elements in head they will have to either be empty or be
> (R)CDATA elements that can take the <!--...--> hack as in <script> and <style>
> for backwards compatibility anyway, and at that point it doesn't matter if it
> implied <body> in legacy UAs -- it'll render the same.

I don't understand what you're saying here. What type of head elements are you
saying we could not introduce? Do you mean comments would ned to be treated as
not comments? That wouldn't effect most other head element nesting though would
it? Only comment nodes. Just trying to make sense of what you wrote.

> New elements in body OTOH will require you to have an explicit <body> tag if
> unknown elements are put in head, otherwise you can't style the new element in
> legacy UAs.

I don't see a problem with requiring explicit body tags for future legacy UA
compatibility (in other words HTML5 introduces a new body element and that
authors can only count on HTML5 UA parsing properly with explicit head and body
tags). Once the author is targeting HTML5 UAs, then again they can return to
implicit head and body tags.

> 
> Consider:
> 
> <!doctype html>
> <title>hello</title>
> <foo>world</foo>
> 
> Should that result in:
> 
> DOCTYPE: html
> html
> .head
> ..title
> ...#text: hello
> ..foo
> .body
> ..#text: world
> 
> ...or:
> 
> DOCTYPE: html
> html
> .head
> ..title
> ...#text: hello
> .body
> ..foo
> ...#text: world
> 
> Per spec currently it's the latter, and personally I think it has a better
> forward compat story than the former.

Again, I don't think I understand what you're saying about head parsing. What
I'm suggesting is neither of the two tree constructions you propose. Instead
I'm suggesting:

DOCTYPE: html
html
.head
..title
...#text: hello
..foo
...#text: world
.body

Though for:

<!doctype html>
<title>hello</title>
<p>from another</p>
<foo>world</foo>

it would be:

DOCTYPE: html
html
.head
..title
...#text: hello
.body
..p
...#text:from another
..foo
...#text: world

because the parser wouldn't return to the "in head" insertion mode once entered
into the "in body" insertion mode.

and for:

<!doctype html>
<title>hello</title>
<foo>from another</foo>
world

it would be:

DOCTYPE: html
html
.head
..title
...#text: hello
..foo
...#text:from another
.body
..#text: world


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 12:06:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 June 2008 12:06:35 GMT