Don't canonicalize during parsing #93
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
parsing should preserve CDATAs and character references. These should only be converted to text in canonicalization if desired.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
My use case is editing documents written by humans, so I want to preserve the structure of the document as much as possible. Using
withCanonicalize noCDATA sections should be preserved, however currently that is only the case if they are the only child of a node, as otherwisemergeTextNodeswill delete them. As far as I can tell the only thingmergeTextNodesdoes during parsing is convert CDATA sections and character references to normal text nodes. Both of these should only be done in canonicalization. A legitamite purposemergeTextNodesmight fullfill here would be merging two consecutive actual text nodes, but I don't think the parser will create such a situation in the first place.If this was accepted this should probably also be changed for
htmlContent.