5 June 2014 TC39 Meeting Notes

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Fri Jun 13 09:45:43 PDT 2014

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com>
> wrote:
> > Does there exist any string where an old browser using old rules would
> > decide that a <module> is closed at one place, but a new browser
> following
> > the rules you propose would decide that the <module> is closed at a
> > different place?
> Is that the constrain? (If it is, removing <!--/--> weirdness would
> indeed be good.)
> I suspect in part this depends on where we allow <module> as well. If
> we make it generic like <template> and <script>,
> "<table><module></table>" would no longer have the element end up
> before the table element, but rather inside (and unclosed until EOF).

Hi Anne, I didn't understand the answer. When an old browser that knows
nothing of <module> specifically sees "<table><module></table>", does it
consider the <module> to be closed when it sees the </table> ? This also
raises the question: Does such an old browser consider the <table> to be
closed by this occurrence of </table>?

> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140613/f01d40ae/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list