5 June 2014 TC39 Meeting Notes

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Fri Jun 13 09:57:09 PDT 2014

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl>

> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com>
> wrote:
> > 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>?
> Yes and yes. I recommend playing with
> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/ if you do not
> want to read the algorithm in the specification. The tree it generates
> might surprise you. Be sure to switch out <module> with <script> for
> differences ;-)

To be clear, you're referring to the automatic placement of <module> as a
descendant of BODY even if it's explicitly written inside <head></head>
(but not for <script>)?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140613/738deb4d/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list