- From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@hotmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:50:30 +0000
Hi,
From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
>However, there may be a 5th option available. Consider this, using the
>following markup samples from the article.
>
>1.
><em><p>X</em>Y</p>
>
>BODY
> + P
> + EM
> + #text: X
> + #text: Y
Why would you drop the first EM? Why should this be parsed any different
than 4? I think it should look like this instead:
BODY
+ EM
+ P
+ EM
+ #text: X
+ #text: Y
>2.
><em><p>XY</p></em>
>
>BODY
> + P
> + EM
> + #text: X
> + #text: Y
Again, I think that there should be an empty EM before the P. Why are there
two text nodes?
BODY
+ EM
+ P
+ EM
+ #text: XY
>3.
><em><p>X</p><p>Y</p></em>
>
>BODY
> + P
> + EM
> + #text: X
> + P
> + EM
> + #text: Y
BODY
+ EM
+ P
+ EM
+ #text: X
+ P
+ EM
+ #text: Y
>4.
><em>X<p>Y</em>Z</p>
>
>BODY
> + EM
> + #text: X
> + P
> + EM
> + #text: Y
> + #text: Z
Agree.
I don't think there's much advantage of differentiating between
"well-formed" and "malformed" markup. They should be parsed the same to keep
things simple and predictable. Thus, <em><p>XY</p></em> should be parsed as:
BODY
+ EM
+ P
+ EM
+ #text: XY
...IMHO.
Regards,
Simon Pieters
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 04:50:30 UTC