<CADh5Ky1hZT+hc8GD8YUm8Rw57gNkeqcaPB6Zn2Lurig3OfhMOA@mail.gmail.com>
Current votes: None.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> = wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org= > wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.or= g> wrote: >>>>> Ah, that's a good question. This also must be specified. It should >>>>> depend on the parent of the <content> element. If the parent is shado= w >>>>> root or <table>, then it should make <tr> the child of <content>. >>>>> Otherwise, it should use foster parenting as usual. >>>> >>>> Oops, not "foster parenting", but "ignore" as you mentioned. Still >>>> getting through the details of the parsing spec. >>> >>> There's also some subtly w.r.t. the pending character tokens. >>> >>> More generally, I think we'd all be much more sane if the HTML parsing >>> algorithm was specified in the HTML living standard rather than >>> modified ad-hoc in a number of different documents. >> >> That makes sense, but how will we handle the fact that the elements in >> the algorithm aren't part of the HTML specification? > > Through the magic of legacy support, that's already the case today! > (I'm looking at you <xmp>.) > > The parsing algorithm just says how to construct a DOM. =A0You can have > all sorts of crazy futuristic/obsolete elements in the DOM. This sounds bewildering yet encouraging. Should I just attempt writing a patch against the spec and ask Hixie to review it? :DG< > > Adam > > >>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org> wro= te: >>>>>> What if content wrapped elements ignored by the parser. e.g. >>>>>> <content><tr>hi</tr></content> >>>>>> >>>>>> What should the content element include in that case? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Ryosuke >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 18, 2012 10:19 AM, "Dimitri Glazkov" <dglazkov@chromium.org> = wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'sup, Whatwg! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The new HTML elements in the shadow DOM spec >>>>>>> (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index= .html) >>>>>>> and the nascent HTML templates spec (see it all explained here: >>>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/explainer/index.ht= ml) >>>>>>> require tweaking of the HTML parsing behavior -- mostly the tree >>>>>>> construction bits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A typical example would be specifying an insertion point (that's >>>>>>> <content> element) as child of a <table>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <table> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0<content> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0<tr> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0... >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0</tr> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0</content> >>>>>>> </table> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both <shadow> and <template> elements have similar use cases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What would be the sane way to document such changes to the HTML par= ser >>>>>>> behavior? A list of modifications to tree construction modes in eac= h >>>>>>> respective spec? Some "generic insertion point element" clause in t= he >>>>>>> HTML spec? Give me ideas. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also -- what are the side effects of such a change? Surely, there's >>>>>>> something I am not thinking of. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> :DG<