176709 - can't apply font styles to pasted HTML which includes user defined tags

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: DOM: Editor, defect)

Description

[Dave Barrowman]

When I cut & paste a paragraph from the story at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13845-2002Oct24.html, into the
composer or mail editor, the source HTML includes user defined tags
(<nitf>...</nitf>).  

When I try to apply Bold, Italics, etc., to the section, nothing happens.  

If I remove the <nitf>...</nitf> tags, I can successfully apply Bold, etc.

Comment 1

[Syd Logan]

I'm not seeing this result. 

Comment 2

[Kathleen :Brade]

reassign to new placeholder

Comment 3

[Dave Barrowman]

I still see this using trunk build on WinXP from 02/06/2003.

To reproduce: 
1. go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13845-2002Oct24.html
2. select and copy a paragraph from the story
3. pasted into a new editor window
4. select a word in the paragraph you just pasted, and apply the Bold style to it

Expected: word becomes bold
Actual: nothing happens

5. view the HTML Source: you will see <nitf>...</nitf> tags.  If you manually
remove these, step 4 will behave as expected.

Comment 4

[saari (gone)]

EDITORBASE+ ->jfrancis

Comment 5

[Nisheeth Ranjan]

taking for initial investigation...

Comment 6

[Nisheeth Ranjan]

Harish, is there any reason why <nitf> should end up as eHTMLTag_unknown instead
of eHTMLTag_userdefined?  eHTMLTag_unknown is a non-container while
eHTMLTag_userdefined can contain inlines.  If <nitf> would get parsed into
eHTMLTag_userdefined, the DTD rules would allow a <b> to get inserted into
markup within <nitf> and this bug would go away.

Comment 7

[harishd]

<nitf> should be considered as an userdefined tag ( Note: CNavDTD does treat
<nitf> as userdefined tag ). The bug seems to be in COtherElements.h where
userdefined element is probably not initialized correctly. I'll take a look into
it today.

Comment 8

[harishd]

Attachment: Patch v1.0

Intialize userdefined element.

Comment 9

[Nisheeth Ranjan]

I've verified that this patch fixes this bug.  Re-assigning to Harish so that he
can checkin this fix...

Thanks, Harish!

Comment 10

[Johnny Stenback (:jst)]

Comment on attachment 126305 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1.0

sr=jst

Comment 11

[Nisheeth Ranjan]

Comment on attachment 126305 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1.0

Looks good to me. r=nisheeth.

Comment 12

[harishd]

Fix landed.

Comment 13

[Kathleen :Brade]

This fix may have caused the regression in bug 228688