From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean M. Burke)
Thanks for your effort. Greatly appreciated.
>From your document:
--------------------------------------------------------
If we alter the parser to accomodate the above features
of HTML, we will still find that it cannot properly handle
this code:
<p>You can run.
<p>But you can't hide!
It will parse as if it were:
<p>You can run. <p>But you can't hide!</p></p>
To do this, the parser needs to understand that since
a ``p'' element can't contain another ``p'' element, the
second start-tag ``<p>'' acts as if it were preceded by
a close-tag ``</p>''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg to differ on your assumption " It will parse as
if it were: " as the following paragraph is how it parses.
.
Example:
<p>You can run. <p>But you can't hide!</p></p>
Netscape and IE both parse it as if it looked like:
<p>You can run. </p><p>But you can't hide!</p><p></p>
They insert the "end-tag omission" AND
also the "start-tag omission".
NOT as your note:
It will parse as if it were:
<p>You can run. <p>But you can't hide!</p></p>
says. Again, your assumption is curious... (wrong???)
OR, am I reading your explanation wrong. ( I tested both. )
Am I being nit-pickey by pointing out they disagree?
Thanks again for your efforts, and for sharing them
with us.
-John
Sean M. Burke wrote:
>
> I'm going to be speaking at the Yet Another Perl Conference later this
> month about HTML::Element and HTML::TreeBuilder. I've done my
> write-up for the procedings, and Kevin Lenzo says he won't need it in
> final form for another few days (maybe until Jun 3?). In the
> meantime, all are welcome to read the addled mess I've put together as
> notes for my talk and email me any corrections, questions, or
> suggestions.
>
> The write-up is at:
> http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/~sburke/y2c.html
--SNIP--
