- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:15:58 +1100
Simon Pieters wrote: > Hi, > > From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt at 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: Because there were no text nodes between the <em> start-tag and the <p> start tag, so putting it in there would be completely redundant and useless. Although putting it there will have no detrimental effect beyond wasting a minuscule amount of memory, so it really doesn't matter. >> 2. >> <em><p>XY</p></em> >> >> BODY >> + P >> + EM >> + #text: X >> + #text: Y > > Why are there two text nodes? Copy & paste error. > 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. Agree; but again, the empty EM element is redundant. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 05:15:58 UTC