W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2008

Re: "/>" (was Re: several messages about New Vocabularies in text/html

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:11:59 +0200
To: "Neil Soiffer" <Neils@dessci.com>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "Bruce Miller" <bruce.miller@nist.gov>, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@us.ibm.com>, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.t81i59ka64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:03:56 +0200, Neil Soiffer <Neils@dessci.com> wrote:
> The web page reference is really useful, thanks.  You didn't mention IE,  
> so I tried IE7 and got pretty much what you found where it sucked the
> "dangerous" into the script.  However, I found that both Opera 9.5beta  
> and Firefox 2 both treated <script/> as an empty tag, which differs from  
> what
> you found.  I'm puzzled why I found a different behavior in Opera, and  
> why Firefox 2 would differ from FireFox 3.  I don't think this changes  
> the
> discussion, but I thought at least getting the facts straight (and on the
> record) might be useful in a different context.

I think you may have encountered reparsing instead of special treatment  
for <script/>. That is, with <script> the result would have been the same.  
If not, I'd love to see a testcase that backs up that statement (that  
<script/> is different from <script>) as I'd definitely consider that to  
be a bug. (Reparsing is also a bug, but a different one.)

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 15:13:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:40 UTC