- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:39:33 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Simon Pieters wrote: > > Omitted </p> tags seems to be a bit of an issue in combination with INS > and DEL elements. Indeed. > How should a UA parse the following markup snippet? > > <p>foo<ins><p>bar</ins> It should be parsed as: <p> foo <ins> </ins> </p> <p> bar </p> Note that this is an invalid snippet. > The following is what browsers do now: > > Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) > <P>foo<INS><P>bar</INS></P> > innerHTML for the first P: foo<INS> > innerHTML for INS: <P>bar > innerHTML for the second P: bar</INS> This is quite clearly insane... > Opera/9.0 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) > <P>foo<INS></INS></P><P>bar</P> > > Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20051120 > Firefox/1.6a1 > <p>foo<ins><p>bar</p></ins></p> And Safari does what Opera does, which is why it's correct. If either Opera or Safari changed to match what Mozilla does, then that would be correct instead. :-) Basically, when the parsing section gets written, it'll be written to match the behaviour that the most browsers do. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 13:39:33 UTC