W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2008

[whatwg] Stability of tokenizing/dom algorithms

From: Edward Z. Yang <edwardzyang@thewritingpot.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:46:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4946C212.7020507@thewritingpot.com>
James Graham wrote:
> Nothing in section 8 is going to ensure that you get output that passes
> a conformance check. If you do transform the output into something that
> is conforming then you have to make up the rules yourself

Yes, which I suppose is slightly concerning. My philosophy is to first
reconstruct the DOM as much like browsers, and then for non-compliant
DOMs move things around so they become compliant, but *look* the same as
a non-compliant DOM.

> so you have
> just shifted the ambiguity from the client (where it will hopefully
> disappear in a few years once the HTML5 algorithm has large-scale
> adoption) to the sanitizer implementation.

I feel like this is preferable in many cases. There's only one sanitizer
implementation to worry about, as opposed to many browser
implementations. Also, the sanitizer can transparently add cross-browser
compatibility code for poorly supported elements.

Cheers,
Edward
Received on Monday, 15 December 2008 12:46:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:46 UTC