The page I have linked to renders correctly in Mozilla (correctly in the sense that it renders the way I wanted the page to look like.) However there is a bug in the page which commes clear when using Netscape Classic(4.7 etc.), which is that the H1 tag never was ended so the rest of the page is rendered with H1 size and font. I think the correct behaviour for Mozilla is to render the page the way Netscape Classic does, since the HTML code never says to end the H1 tag.
Over to parser.
17 years ago
reassigning for real....
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/struct/global.html#h-7.5.5 The spec. says that HEADING tags do require an end tag. Also, mozilla behaves the way it does ( which is correct ) because HEADING tags can contain only inline elements and H2, contained in H1,in the above URL, is a block level!. I'm inclined to mark this WONTFIX...but may be for compatibililty we should think twice. Any idea if there are more pages affected by this?
i like the way mozilla handles this case. i'd also say WONTFIX
Let me add as an argument (weak one but still) that by having the old Netscape classic behaviour we force people(myself in this case) to code correct HTML. The new behaviour on the other hand allows for sloppy HMTL coding.
Christian: I don't understand your argument. Mozilla is forcing the user to do the correct thing by following the spec. Please take a look into the spec.
No I don't understand you :) .The page I linked to had a 'bug', it is missing the /H1 tag. Mozilla still renders the page like I had a /H1 tag, while the old Netscape renders the whole page with the H1 fontsize etc. This means that Mozilla forgives me for forgetting the /H1 tag, while the old Netscape forces me to correct the mistake in order for the page to render the way it should be. I realise that the SPEC says a H1 tag can't contain a H2 tag so by rendering the page in H1 style only until the H2 tag is found you are following the SPEC, but on the other hand the SPEC also says you should have an end tag to H1, which you with the current behaviour indirectly allow to be ommited.
updated qa contact.
VERIFIED WONTFIX -- we have much, much bigger fish to fry, sorry! :-) Thanks for helping though.