On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
There's also some subtly w.r.t. the pending character tokens. More generally, I think we'd all be much more sane if the HTML parsing algorithm was specified in the HTML living standard rather than modified ad-hoc in a number of different documents. Adam >> 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<
