On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Rafael Weinstein <rafa...@google.com>wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > > If we're going to do that, then we don't need any lookahead at all. We > > should support literally that: parsing one element and its descendants. > We > > determine what element is being generatd by looking at the top of the > > string ("<div ..." -> it's a div, "<tr ..." -> it's a tr, etc), and we > > parse until that element is popped from the stack or the end of the > string > > is reached. This avoids all the problems with doing magical lookahead. > > This was more or less Yehuda's original proposal. If we can make this > work, I think it also solves the problem and would be acceptable. My > sense is that this solution probably introduces more complexity into > the parser and it's output isn't any superior. > Yehuda has actually been complaining about this limitation for quite a while. I know that he would not consider this a full solution.