On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, that's a good question. This also must be specified. It should > depend on the parent of the <content> element. If the parent is shadow > root or <table>, then it should make <tr> the child of <content>. > Otherwise, it should use foster parenting as usual.
Oops, not "foster parenting", but "ignore" as you mentioned. Still getting through the details of the parsing spec. > > :DG< > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: >> What if content wrapped elements ignored by the parser. e.g. >> <content><tr>hi</tr></content> >> >> What should the content element include in that case? >> >> - Ryosuke >> >> On Jan 18, 2012 10:19 AM, "Dimitri Glazkov" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 'sup, Whatwg! >>> >>> The new HTML elements in the shadow DOM spec >>> (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html) >>> and the nascent HTML templates spec (see it all explained here: >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/explainer/index.html) >>> require tweaking of the HTML parsing behavior -- mostly the tree >>> construction bits. >>> >>> A typical example would be specifying an insertion point (that's >>> <content> element) as child of a <table>: >>> >>> <table> >>> <content> >>> <tr> >>> ... >>> </tr> >>> </content> >>> </table> >>> >>> Both <shadow> and <template> elements have similar use cases. >>> >>> What would be the sane way to document such changes to the HTML parser >>> behavior? A list of modifications to tree construction modes in each >>> respective spec? Some "generic insertion point element" clause in the >>> HTML spec? Give me ideas. >>> >>> Also -- what are the side effects of such a change? Surely, there's >>> something I am not thinking of. >>> >>> :DG<
