On 23 Sep 2009, at 21:48, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
Philip Taylor writes:
In particular, the tokenizer state machine will result in a start tag
token with name "input" and with one attribute, which has name
"disabled" and value "banana". That feeds into the tree construction
algorithm, which will http://whatwg.org/html5#insert-an-html-element
which will http://whatwg.org/html5#create-an-element-for-the-token
which requires "the attributes on the node being those given in the
given token". No error recovery occurs while parsing this case. The
attributes in the DOM are (very nearly) always exactly what was in
the
input document.
The only kind of error recovery in this case is that
http://whatwg.org/html5#concept-fe-disabled defines the element to be
disabled if the 'disabled' attribute exists on the element in the
DOM,
regardless of the attribute's value.
Hmm. OK, I misunderstood. I thought that in general the DOM which
resulted from parsing was 'conformant', i.e., would if serialized by a
conformant document, but it appears I was mistaken.
This would make it impossible to degrade new stuff nicely. E.g.,
<input type=date>. I can in JS do something like:
var type = input.getAttribute("type") ?
input.getAttribute("type").toLowerCase() : "text";
if (input.type != type)
{
if (type == "date")
applyMagicJSDatePicker(input);
else if (type == "color")
applyMagicJSColourPicker(input);
[etc…]
}
If the DOM was always conformant, it would be impossible to do that,
and would make degrading gracefully in older UAs a lot harder.
--
Geoffrey Sneddon
<http://gsnedders.com/>
