W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2005

[whatwg] Test suite: Embedded content

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:10:01 +1100
Message-ID: <438BB879.7030004@lachy.id.au>
Blake Kaplan wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Why does it need to parse it differently depending on the mode?  Since 
>> noembed is just hidden anyway, it really shouldn't matter how its 
>> content is parsed and parsing it like #PCDATA makes the most sense.
>>
> 
> At least in Gecko, we parse the contents of <noembed>, <noscript>, 
> <noframes>, and <iframe> as CDATA when we're not going to be using their 
> contents because in the past, we've had lots of problems with authors 
> treating these tags like C's preprocessor directives, handling cases 
> like: <head><noscript><body>...</noscript><script>...</script><body> is 
> extremely difficult (and then preserving round-tripping for editor gets 
> to be a problem, and the list of problems goes on).

Ok, but how is equivalent markup handled in XHTML, where parsing 
obviously can't switch to CDATA?

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 18:10:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:24 UTC