W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: edge issues with DOM, text/html, and xml serializations [was Re: handling fallback content for still images]

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:34:33 +0100
Message-ID: <46924779.7080007@cam.ac.uk>
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Robert Burns wrote:
> Despite some confusion on these issues, there isn't a single right way to do
> these things and the sooner we can acknowledge that the easier our task will
> be.

If you're talking about XML parsing there really is only one way to do it; the 
DOM you get is determined by the XML spec. Any browser that does something 
different has a bug.

>>>> It would be really useful if, any time you want to talk about the 
>>>> parsing-behavior of current UAs, you could post the source of some 
>>>> example input and DOM produced from that input.
>>> Several posts in this discussion included source samples and discussed
>>> the results. Many of us have DOM viewers built into our browsers.
>> 
>> So do I. The point is it helps to make sure everyone is on the same page if
>> we have a testcase in a form where anyone reading the message is sure of a)
>> what, exactly, has been tested and b) what the results are. The Live DOM
>> Viewer makes this easy.
> 
> However, didn't you say that the live DOM viewer is for text/html. This 
> entire thread has mostly been focussed on the xml serialization, so the live
> DOM viewer wouldn't work for this thread.

XML is less interesting in general because a) it's much less widely used and b) 
the correct behavior of XML parsers is generally well understood (at least 
compared to HTML parsers).

  We all understand the way the
> text/html is processed, however, there have been some surprises on the XML
> side (for example Safari's processing XML in the same way as text/html and
> inserting an implied <tbody> into the DOM>). Maciej also said the Opera and
> (eventually new) WebKit way of processing this will be to insert an anonymous
> tbody. CSS has anonymous boxes. However, it doesn't have an anonymous tbody
> box. Either Maciej is confusing these two things or there's a new concept
> being introduced here: a CSS inferred tbody box (to coin a phrase).

As far as I understand it (and I understand CSS very little), all that happens 
is that some extra "anonymous" elements are inserted in the CSS render tree. The 
DOM does not change at-all.

> I asked this before, but I'll try again. Can I use this for XML serialized
> and delivered documents?

Sadly the XML version of the Live DOM Viewer seems to be broken. However if you 
think it is useful to know how XML parsers act I can try to hook an XML parser 
up to the HTML5 Parse Tree Viewer.

-- 
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
  -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 14:34:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC