Re: Hubbub "has_children" tree callback no longer used?

Please reply to the list and not directly to me. Thanks.

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:05:28PM +0100, Ralf Junker wrote:
> On 12.02.2014 17:01, John-Mark Bell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:10:35PM +0100, Ralf Junker wrote:
>>
>>> Hence I believe that the "has_children" callback could (and should?) be
>>> removed from the hubbub_tree_handler.
>>
>> That would be an ABI break, which we strive to avoid. However, the next
>> release of Hubbub already breaks the ABI in other areas, so I'm inclined
>> to take the opportunity to remove that treebuilder callback entry.
>
> I am all for it, unless ...
>
>> Of course, it might resurface later, should we ever get around to
>> bringing Hubbub's implementation back in line with the specification.
>> Somewhat embarrassingly, it's nearly 5 years out of date.
>
> ... Hubbub requires the has_children callback to meet the specification.
> If so, I would prefer to leave it in now to avoid ABI breaks in the
> future.

Well, fundamentally, I don't think we're anywhere near a position where
the Hubbub's ABI can be called stable, regardless of this specific case.
5 years of specification changes will have a great deal of impact. Until
Hubbub is updated, it's almost impossible to know what will change.

> Since documentation is somewhat scarce, could you name parts of the
> specifications Hubbub currently does not conform to? I am not asking for
> an exhaustive list, just some clues to give me a rough idea.

The only part of the HTML specification which is relevant to Hubbub is
the chapter on parsing (and anything it references). I'm not going to
quote the section numbers, as that's liable to change as the
specification evolves.

As docs/Updated states, the last time Hubbub matched the specified
behaviour was 2009-03-10. The specification has changed a great deal
since then (and no, we have not done a gap analysis to see where the
differences lie).


J.