After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 681822 - Blank nodes are always removed from HTML (regardless the option HTML_PARSE_NOBLANKS)
Blank nodes are always removed from HTML (regardless the option HTML_PARSE_NO...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: libxml2
Classification: Platform
Component: general
git master
Other Windows
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Daniel Veillard
libxml QA maintainers
: 319716 642191 675351 728997 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-08-14 09:32 UTC by Igor Ignatyuk
Modified: 2017-06-17 10:51 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
Preliminary bug fix (1.40 KB, patch)
2012-08-14 10:00 UTC, Igor Ignatyuk 		none Details | Review

Description Igor Ignatyuk 2012-08-14 09:32:50 UTC 
Regardless if the option HTML_PARSE_NOBLANKS is set or not, blank nodes are removed from a HTML document, for example:

<html>
  <head>
    <title>This is a test.</title>
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>This is a test.</p>
  </body>
</html>

is read as:

<html><head><title>This is a test.</title></head><body>
    <p>This is a test.</p>
  </body></html>

(Reproduced with the version 2.8.0.)
Comment 1 Igor Ignatyuk 2012-08-14 10:00:58 UTC 
Created attachment 221122 [details] [review]
Preliminary bug fix

Probably this bug fix is incorrect, but it does what I need.
Comment 2 Daniel Veillard 2012-09-07 11:54:07 UTC 
Okay, i agree that having 1 useless parser flag setup by default
and forcing loss of data is not a good situatin, so i applied a patch based on yours fixing the issue. I will check how it goes uspstream
  hopefully we can keep as-is without adding a new parser flag specifically
for that behaviour

  http://git.gnome.org/browse/libxml2/commit/?id=f933c898132f20a50ba39ac6116378b71a01c700

 thanks !

Daniel
Comment 3 Nick Wellnhofer 2017-06-17 10:49:56 UTC 
*** Bug 642191 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Nick Wellnhofer 2017-06-17 10:50:08 UTC 
*** Bug 319716 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Nick Wellnhofer 2017-06-17 10:50:58 UTC 
*** Bug 675351 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Nick Wellnhofer 2017-06-17 10:51:55 UTC 
*** Bug 728997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***