>>>Is there an example of something which is valid HTML _and_ which would >>>(for good reason) be interpreted as something else by the old parser? >> >>Well, the one above. And, "for good reason" is relative, I guess. > >If you present the reason why anyone would write that, then I might be >able to judge whether it is "good" or not...
I very much do /not/ want to keep the current interpretation. It would just requite a significantly more extensive rewrite of the parser to do it correctly. >>foo="'"bar"'" to set the attribute "foo" to "'bar'" > ^^^^^^^ >But you just said how that is written shorter and less convoluted! Indeed. The actual example in the testsuite was more along the lines of foo='"This is a quotes string. it'"'"'s using both types of quotes"' -> "This is a quoted string. It's using both types of quotes" I would prefer using entities, myself. And I think that has always been the prefered method. foo=""e;This is a quotes string. it's using both types of quotes"e;' And I really have no idea what the Parser.HTML documentation says about it all, I do not think it actually mentions how things are parsed. But the code goes to great lengths to actually support the concatenation of strings, so it must have been intentional. -- Per Hedbor
