105725 - Parser interprets commented out meta http-equiv tag and applies to document

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 124904

(Core :: DOM: HTML Parser, defect, P3)

Description

[Tague Griffith]

There seems to be a problem with the parser reading commented out meta
http-equiv tags as "live" and applying them to the document.  If you open up the
above URL, Mozilla will render it as a cp1252 document (even after applying
character encoding auto-detect) instead of Shift-JIS which is specified in the
actual/live meta http-equiv tag.  In the Page Source view, mozilla displays the
commented out meta http-equiv as a comment.  

Internet Explorer renders the page as expected (in Japanese).

Comment 1

[Christopher Hoess (gone)]

Looks like a Quirks doctype, so we may be using slightly non-standard comment parsing.

Comment 2

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

This is not a comment parsing problem, imo.  The meta charset extraction is done
in nsHTMLDocument.cpp as far as I can tell and is _not_ done by the parser. 
confirming, but this could very well be an i18n problem.

Comment 3

[harishd]

Boris: This is a bug in the parser. There is a meta charset sniffing code in
nsParser and I think that's where the problem is.

Comment 4

[Katsuhiko Momoi]

CC'ing some i18n folks. 
harish, is this a problem in not being able to ignore comments in the charset
sniffing code only? Not a generic comment parsing problem?

Comment 5

[harishd]

kat: This is not a comment parsing problem.

Comment 6

[harishd]

Attachment: patch v1.0

This could have an impact on the performance!.

Comment 7

[harishd]

Working on a better fix since I don't want to compromise performance.

Comment 8

[harishd]

Out of time. Mass move to 0.9.9

Comment 9

[scottputterman]

Moving Netscape owned 0.9.9 and 1.0 bugs that don't have an nsbeta1, nsbeta1+,
topembed, topembed+, Mozilla0.9.9+ or Mozilla1.0+ keyword.  Please send any
questions or feedback about this to [e-mail].  You can search for
"Moving bugs not scheduled for a project" to quickly delete this bugmail.

Comment 10

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

How is this different from bug 124904?

Comment 11

[harishd]

Yup this is a dup of bug 124904 ( or the other way around ).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 124904 ***

Comment 12

[Moied]

Verified dup