On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> > wrote: > > Does there exist any string where an old browser using old rules would > > decide that a <module> is closed at one place, but a new browser > following > > the rules you propose would decide that the <module> is closed at a > > different place? > > Is that the constrain? (If it is, removing <!--/--> weirdness would > indeed be good.) > > I suspect in part this depends on where we allow <module> as well. If > we make it generic like <template> and <script>, > "<table><module></table>" would no longer have the element end up > before the table element, but rather inside (and unclosed until EOF). > Hi Anne, I didn't understand the answer. When an old browser that knows nothing of <module> specifically sees "<table><module></table>", does it consider the <module> to be closed when it sees the </table> ? This also raises the question: Does such an old browser consider the <table> to be closed by this occurrence of </table>? > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
