On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> [http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#bogus]
>
> I haven't had time to investigate it fully (like inspecting the real DOM in
> the
> three browsers I was testing on). It seems that Internet Explorer presevers
> the
> nodes in some way (wh
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
To me, it seems reasonable to drop invalid constructs like .
That's not an invalid construct in HTML4, it's a perfectly valid SGML
processing instruction (it would not be well-formed in XML, however).
It's just not at all well supported and has no defined meaning so
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:00:13 +0600, Anne van Kesteren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't had time to investigate it fully (like inspecting the real DOM
in the
three browsers I was testing on). It seems that Internet Explorer
presevers the
nodes in some way (when looking at the innerHTML).
I haven't had time to investigate it fully (like inspecting the real DOM in the
three browsers I was testing on). It seems that Internet Explorer presevers the
nodes in some way (when looking at the innerHTML). It shows like a processing
instruction though, not a comment. Firefox simply drops all p
