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

[whatwg] Test suite: Embedded content

From: Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:58:25 -0500
Message-ID: <438BB5C1.2000702@mozilla.com>
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).

By treating the contents of these tags as CDATA, we're able to make most 
people happy (though nesting <noscript>s doesn't quite work as expected).
-- 
Blake Kaplan
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 17:58:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:43 UTC