44340 - [DOCTYPE] should have stricter DOCTYPE parsing code

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: DOM: HTML Parser, defect, P2)

Description

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

I'm entering this as a bug so that the code doesn't get lost, since I've pulled
it out of my tree.  I still think we should consider doing something like this
in the future, so I'm going to move this to MFuture.

The code I'm going to attach is a few functions (already slightly out of date)
that do mode selection based on strict parsing of the DOCTYPE.  They go to
noquirks for unknown DTD's from 3 sources (W3C, ISO, IETF), but quirks for
unknown ones from other sources.  What is done with a given set of DTDs could
easily be changed.  The parsing is done as close to the SGML spec as I could
get, although there are a few things I don't handle fully.

Comment 1

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

Attachment: the DOCTYPE parsing code itself

Comment 2

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

Attachment: a diff for some other changes to use this code

Comment 3

[rickg]

wont fix; pulling strictDTD support.

Comment 4

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

Reopening.  We still use doctype parsing for layout quirks.

Comment 5

[ekrock's old account (dead)]

Marking [DOCTYPE] for easy searching.

Comment 6

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

Nominating for mozilla 0.9.  I'd like to get this in (revised, due to
bug 55264) for mozilla 1.0, at it should have significant testing beforehand.

The current code is bad because it's just wrong.  We should be testing equality
of doctypes, not searching the DOCTYPE's public ID for certain strings such as
numbers that we think are versions or searching the system ID for certain
strings that are currently used as the file naming conventions for storage of
DTDs in W3C specs (e.g., "strict.dtd").  While it can be demonstrated to be
correct on many common examples, we've already seen one example of serious
failure (bug 55916), and there will probably be more.

Comment 7

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

For lack of comments from rickg, assigning to myself.

Comment 8

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

I've been trying to fix this in a sensible way involving only parsing the DOCTYPE
in one place.  However, the htmlparser design makes this very difficult.

Comment 9

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Removing patch keyword based on dbaron's comments that the current patch is no 
longer valid. Good luck with getting this to work :-)

Gerv

Comment 10

[bsharma]

updated qa contact.

Comment 11

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

Reality check.  Moving out to 0.9.1.

Comment 12

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

David: Do you still want to do something with this?

Comment 13

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

*** Bug 82261 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 14

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

I would still like to do this, but 0.9.2 should be a low-risk milestone, so
moving to 0.9.3.  I guess we'll just ship 0.9.2 with the mess we currently have,
unless someone feels strongly that I should try to do this for 0.9.2.

Comment 15

[Markus Hübner]

what's the current status?

Comment 16

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

Patch is incorporated into the patch on bug 55264.

Comment 17

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

Fix checked in 2001-09-08 11:37 PDT (see bug 55264).