[Bug 26187] New: implicit close for <rb>/<rtc> elements.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26187

            Bug ID: 26187
           Summary: implicit close for <rb>/<rtc> elements.
           Product: WHATWG
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: Other
                OS: other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: DOM Parsing and Serialization
          Assignee: Ms2ger@gmail.com
          Reporter: w3@cscott.net
        QA Contact: sideshowbarker+domparsingspec@gmail.com
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org,
                    www-dom@w3.org

WHATWG and the W3C seem to disagree on the status of <rb> and <rtc>.

The W3C HTML spec contains examples such as:

<ruby>法<rb>華<rb>経<rt>ほ<rt>け<rt>きょう</ruby>

and contains text in
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#closing-elements-that-have-implied-end-tags
which ensures that the <rb> is parsed correctly.

On the other hand, the WHATWG spec explicitly lists <rb> as "non-conforming" in
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features
and contains text in
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tree-construction.html#closing-elements-that-have-implied-end-tags
which *doesn't list* rb or rtc, ensuring that the example in the W3C HTML spec
will be parsed incorrectly (the <rb> tag won't be closed until the </ruby>).

This is a mess.  I haven't tested all browsers, but Chrome (at least)
implements the WHATWG parsing algorithm, not the W3C one.

If the W3C plans to keep the rb/rtc elements, I suggest that they deprecate the
"implicit close" on those elements, warning authors that they need to include
explicit close tags if they want existing browsers to parse them correctly.

Alternatively, if the WHATWG is feeling generous, they could add rb/rtc to
their parsing spec so that browsers parse rb/rtc correctly, even if they don't
"like" those elements.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 20:25:27 UTC