- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:43:24 +0100
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:31:48 +0100, Tommy Thorsen <tommy at kvaleberg.com> wrote: > Simon Pieters wrote: >>> The description of the title element in the spec ("4.2.2 The title >>> element") says: >>> >>> Contexts in which this element may be used: >>> In a head element containing no other title elements. >>> >>> I don't care very strongly about whether or not title elements are >>> allowed anywhere, but I do think the output of the parsing algorithm >>> should be valid html according to the rest of the spec. >> >> Why? >> > Hmm. Good question. If not, then why do we do foster parenting at all? For Web compat. It's what browsers do. (IE and Opera don't foster parent but have magic <caption>-like elements around non-table content which makes it render pretty much the same.) > From an implementors point of view, it's good to have clearly defined > boundaries between modules. An implementation would typically have one > module that tokenises and parses html and one module that renders the > resulting dom to the screen. If all the unexpected input is dealt with > in the parsing module, then you can make some assumptions in the > rendering module which can greatly simplify the implementation. Having > to deal with an arbitrary amount of illegal input in either module is, > IMHO, not the ideal design. When you support XHTML you'll have to deal with arbitrary trees anyway. And, actually, just with DOM and scripting you can end up with arbitrary trees. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 06:43:24 UTC