Closed
Bug 329007
Opened 19 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
Implicitly opened heads confuse the fragment content sink.
Categories
(Core :: DOM: HTML Parser, defect, P3)
Core
DOM: HTML Parser
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WORKSFORME
mozilla1.9alpha1
People
(Reporter: mrbkap, Assigned: mrbkap)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression, Whiteboard: [patch])
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
|
5.41 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Given a testcase such as: "<html> <head attr='foo'>", if you look at the DOM we produce, the attribute is missing. This is because the parser will implicitly open a head for the space between the HTML and HEAD elements, but when it sees actual <HEAD> tag, it'll say, "Oh, the head's already open, we don't need to do anything." This is bad, especially because the fragment content sink currently ignores the implicitly opened head (that's another bug).
This needs to be fixed for bug 228920.
|
Assignee | |
Updated•19 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Priority: -- → P3
Whiteboard: [patch]
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 1•19 years ago
|
||
This shores up this code a bit. <head> elements will close all open tags at which point it's the content sinks' resposibility to deal with multiple heads opening and closing at will. The fragment sink currently does a so-so job of this, but for now it does well enough.
Attachment #213626 -
Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #213626 -
Flags: review?(bugmail)
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 2•19 years ago
|
||
I think this one is unassailable, since it doesn't let <head><object><table> start raining on the parade.
Attachment #213626 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #213652 -
Flags: review?(bugmail)
Attachment #213626 -
Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #213626 -
Flags: review?(bugmail)
|
|
Assignee | |
Updated•19 years ago
|
Summary: Implicitly opened heads make confuse the fragment content sink. → Implicitly opened heads confuse the fragment content sink.
Comment on attachment 213652 [details] [diff] [review]
Fixed proposed fix
Blake: Does this patch still need review?
Comment on attachment 213652 [details] [diff] [review]
Fixed proposed fix
This apparently could do with some simplification
Attachment #213652 -
Flags: review?(bugmail)
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 5•19 years ago
|
||
Attachment #213652 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #216143 -
Flags: review?(bugmail)
Comment on attachment 216143 [details] [diff] [review]
Only the relevant bits
Clearing request since a new patch was in the works. Just re-request if you want to go with the current one.
Attachment #216143 -
Flags: review?(bugmail)
|
||
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
was this fixed in bug 329399?
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 8•17 years ago
|
||
I don't think so, but I can't reproduce my results from comment 0. Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly what I was thinking when I filed this bug. I'm going to mark this as WFM and hope that it doesn't come back to bite me.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•