Simon Pieters wrote:
Hi,
From: Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
However, there may be a 5th option available. Consider this, using
the following markup samples from the article.
1.
<em><p>X</em>Y</p>
BODY
+ P
+ EM
+ #text: X
+ #text: Y
Why would you drop the first EM? Why should this be parsed any different
than 4? I think it should look like this instead:
Because there were no text nodes between the <em> start-tag and the <p>
start tag, so putting it in there would be completely redundant and
useless. Although putting it there will have no detrimental effect
beyond wasting a minuscule amount of memory, so it really doesn't matter.
2.
<em><p>XY</p></em>
BODY
+ P
+ EM
+ #text: X
+ #text: Y
Why are there two text nodes?
Copy & paste error.
I don't think there's much advantage of differentiating between
"well-formed" and "malformed" markup. They should be parsed the same to
keep things simple and predictable. Thus, <em><p>XY</p></em> should be
parsed as:
BODY
+ EM
+ P
+ EM
+ #text: XY
...IMHO.
Agree; but again, the empty EM element is redundant.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
