On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:34:13 -0700
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 13:16, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Matt wrote:
> >
> > I don't see any real reason to drop a decent piece of code (HTMLParser,
> > that is) in favor of a third party library when only re
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 13:16, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Matt wrote:
>
> I don't see any real reason to drop a decent piece of code (HTMLParser,
> that is) in favor of a third party library when only relatively minor
> updates are needed to bring it up to speed with the
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:31, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/29/2011 07:22 AM, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>
> > I disaagree. Having proper html parsing out of the box is part of
> > the "batteries included" thing. And it is not a matter of "having
> >
On Jul 29, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Matt wrote:
> I don't see any real reason to drop a decent piece of code (HTMLParser, that
> is) in favor of a third party library when only relatively minor updates are
> needed to bring it up to speed with the latest spec.
I am not really one to throw stones here,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz
wrote:
>
> On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> > Joao S. O. Bueno, 29.07.2011 13:22:
> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> >>> Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Mat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/29/2011 07:22 AM, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> I disaagree. Having proper html parsing out of the box is part of
> the "batteries included" thing. And it is not a matter of "having
> html 5" - as stated on this thread, fixing it for html5 will fix
On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Joao S. O. Bueno, 29.07.2011 13:22:
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
>
> - What policies are in place for keeping parity w
Joao S. O. Bueno, 29.07.2011 13:22:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
- What policies are in place for keeping parity with other HTML
parsers (such as those in web browsers)?
There aren't any bey
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
>>>
>>> - What policies are in place for keeping parity with other HTML
>>> parsers (such as those in web browsers)?
>>
>> There aren't any beyond "it would be n
Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
- What policies are in place for keeping parity with other HTML
parsers (such as those in web browsers)?
There aren't any beyond "it would be nice".
[...]
It's more of an issue of someone caring enough to do the coding
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I wanted to ask a few questions and start a discussion about HTML5
> support within the HTMLParser class(es). Over on issue 670664, an
> inconsistency with the way browsers and the HTMLParser parse script
> and style tags was discovered.
11 matches
Mail list logo