Re: "ok" for unnested body

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 11:48:18AM -0300, genoob wrote:
> Hello!
> I'm a noob, so I'm sorry if this is actually not an issue, but I've
> searched and haven't found anything on this.
> 
> When creating a simple list using `ul` (I've replaced < > with `` in
> order to avoid html parsing by some readers) tags I accidentally
> placed it after `/body``/html` and to my surprise It wasn't marked as
> an html error and the data was correctly displayed, jus like it would
> be had the list been placed inside the `html``body` `/body``/html`
> tags. Unnesting `li` from `ul` however displayed nesting problem, but
> only referring to the `li` being out of `ul` or `ol` tags, not from it
> being unnested from `html` `body`.
> 
> I realize my explanation might be a little confusing at this point, so
> this is what I mean:
> 
> I put it on bpaste so this message wouldn't be flagged as spam:
> https://bpaste.net/show/ed1374304997
> And this is a screenshot of the data being displayed and getting a
> thumbs-up from the browser in case its relevant:
> http://i.imgur.com/d1f9Pv9.png
> 
> I'd like to report this in case it's a bug(invalid html being marked
> valid), however if it's a valid html you can disregard/exclude this
> message from the list with no hard feelings.
> 
> I'm using dillo-3.0.5-r1 by the way.
> 
> I'm sorry if this was confusing and wasted your time.
> In case you need more info on my system I'm happy to help however I can.
> 
> And thanks for maintaining such a nice project (It really helped me a
> lot thus far).

  A bit of history...

  Long ago, dillo stopped rendering after BODY or HTML was closed.

  Unfortunately several free web hosting sites were serving their client's
sites wrapped within their formats (mainly advertising); fair enough.
But they were using poor HTML (tag soup) and used to close BODY even more
than twice. Dillo users complained that their sites were not visible with
Dillo...

  At some point we decided to keep rendering until EOF.

  Now, coding detection for this type of bug is possible and not that
complex, it is just low on priority (i.e. patch welcomed). Anyway, it
needs a solid understanding of the parsing code. I'll give it a quick look
and if I can come with a short patch, it could be committed.

  FYI, if you right click the bugmeter you can validate the page either with
W3C or WDG (more info in the same menu).

-- 
  Cheers
  Jorge.-