- From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:35:11 -0800
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Tommy Thorsen wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Tommy Thorsen wrote: >> >> 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. > > Unfortunately, we have little choice in the matter. Scripting and XML both > allow you to unambiguously create highly non-conforming DOMs, e.g. with > <title> elements as the root element and <html> elements as children of > <input> elements. The renderer has to deal with all such DOMs. > What does XML has to do with any of this? A script that adds an HTML element to a INPUT element should cause an hierarchy exception to be raised. You have a choice: 1) leave DOM 1 alone; let the implementation throw an hierarchy exception. 2) make a standardized behavior for this case. | Since user agents may vary in how they handle error conditions, authors and users | must not rely on specific error recovery behavior. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/appendix/notes.html#notes-invalid-docs Garrett > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 20:35:11 UTC