[whatwg] Basic assumption about text/html parsing

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Is it the intent of WHAT WG to specify text/html parsing in such a way 
> that for each WHAT WG-conforming text/html document there exists (in the 
> mathematical sense) exactly one equivalent canonicalized (in the XML 
> c14n sense) XHTML document?

That isn't a design goal, but off the top of my head I don't see any 
reason why this wouldn't be the case, except if you include comparing the 
result of the parsing the document with scripting enable vs disabled.

> (Also, it would be cool to have a test suite of text/html docs and their 
> canonical XHTML equivalents.)


Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 16:02:31 UTC