You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
All three browsers serialize text children of noscript in template as if scripting was disabled vs. in div as if scripting was enabled.
Firefox parser all cases as if scripting was enabled.
Safari and Chrome parse the div cases as well as the template contents that are directly in the HTML loaded from network as if scripting was enabled but parse the other template cases as if scripting was disabled.
It seems that template having these inconsistencies compared to div is bad and a hazard that can cause bugs on sites, and it seems that we should make template behave consistently with div here.
Unfortunately, there is existence proof of a site that depends on innerHTML on template parsing as if scripting was disabled.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What is the issue with the HTML Standard?
Load https://hsivonen.com/test/moz/template-innerHTML.html in Firefox, Safari, and Chrome and examine the results. (Also view source.)
Observations:
div
cases.noscript
intemplate
as if scripting was disabled vs. indiv
as if scripting was enabled.div
cases as well as thetemplate
contents that are directly in the HTML loaded from network as if scripting was enabled but parse the othertemplate
cases as if scripting was disabled.It appears that these are unintended side effects of how the appropriate template contents owner document.
It seems that
template
having these inconsistencies compared todiv
is bad and a hazard that can cause bugs on sites, and it seems that we should maketemplate
behave consistently withdiv
here.Unfortunately, there is existence proof of a site that depends on
innerHTML
ontemplate
parsing as if scripting was disabled.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: