- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:49:01 +0200
- To: Cameron Zemek <grom@zeminvaders.net>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Cameron Zemek <grom@zeminvaders.net> wrote: > I assume I'm probably missing some historical reason for this, its > just struck me as needless complexity. In other words, what good > reasons exist for ignoring null characters in certain portions of the > HTML specification? As Ian said the specification was originally written in the simpler way. It was then implemented and shipped in Gecko, broke a few sites, and the somewhat more complex behavior which is more compatible with legacy user agent handling was introduced. It's really not that different from parsing <image> as <img> or <table><p> as <p><table>. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 11:49:32 UTC