On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Cameron Zemek <[email protected]> wrote: > I assume I'm probably missing some historical reason for this, its > just struck me as needless complexity. In other words, what good > reasons exist for ignoring null characters in certain portions of the > HTML specification?
As Ian said the specification was originally written in the simpler way. It was then implemented and shipped in Gecko, broke a few sites, and the somewhat more complex behavior which is more compatible with legacy user agent handling was introduced. It's really not that different from parsing <image> as <img> or <table><p> as <p><table>. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
