- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:24:38 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > I believe there are some mistakes in the DOCTYPE state section. > > As far as I can tell both of these DOCTYPEs are considered conformant, but > shouldn't the first be an easy parse error? > > <!DOCTYPEhtml> > <!DOCTYPE html> Yeah. Fixed. They both still generate the same DOM but the first causes an error to be flagged. > * That should read "[subtract] 0x0020 to the character's codepoint" > (This error is repeated in the DOCTYPE name state too.) Fixed. Though I'm not sure we want to be doing this really. I'm torn. > * Why is it marked as being error at that stage? It doesn't seem to > be necessary because of the last step in the DOCTYPE name state that > says: > "If the name of the DOCTYPE token is exactly the four letters "HTML", > then mark the token as being correct. Otherwise, mark it as being in > error." It's mostly just for the case of an EOF during the DOCTYPE name state. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 12:24:38 UTC