Bug 15975 – REGRESSION: rcov 0.8 CSS highlighting is broken in Safari 3

• Component: DOM
• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

[Luis de la Rosa]

I reported this originally on http://www.luisdelarosa.com/2007/11/10/ruby-bugs-on-leopard/

rcov is a code coverage tool for ruby.  Its latest version is 0.8.0.2.  The output will highlight covered lines of code in green and uncovered in red.  This worked perfectly in Tiger with Safari 2.  However, in Leopard with Safari 3, it no longer highlights.  I also tested with OmniWeb 5.6 and it does not highlight either.

However, Firefox 2 on Leopard does work properly as does Camino on Leopard.

One good URL that shows the information is http://taw.chaosforge.org/magic_xml/coverage/magic_xml_rb.html

Rcov 0.4 however works properly in Safari 3 on Leopard and here's an example URL:
http://bioruby-doc.org/coverage/-tmp-bioruby-lib-bio-db-gff_rb.html

If you look at the difference, it looks like there are some extra XHTML tags that are of the form "<a name="line1" />" which throw off Safari 3.

Also I tested a WebKit nightly, but I don't remember the version - I will test again soon but it was broken as well.

[Mark Rowe (bdash)]

Created attachment 17255 [details]
Reduced test case

[Mark Rowe (bdash)]

http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/ does a good job of showing the difference here between Firefox and Safari.  For the following snippet:

<span><a/>Span One</span>
<span><a/>Span Two</span>

In Safari, the DOM is equivalent to the DOM given by:
<span><a>Span One</a></span>
<a> <span></span></a><a>Span Two </a>

While in Firefox, the DOM is equivalent to that given by:
<span><a>Span One</a></span>
<span><a>Span Two</a></span>

[Mark Rowe (bdash)]

<rdar://problem/5599013>

What does libhtml5 say?

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

Looks like it agrees with WebKit: <http://james.html5.org/parsetree.html>. MSIE builds a very different tree however.

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

This problem still occurs in Safari 5 and nightlies.

Adam, do we want to track this as an HTML5 parser compatibility issue?

[Adam Barth]

> Adam, do we want to track this as an HTML5 parser compatibility issue?

Sure.

[Adam Barth]

I'm sorry, but I don't think we're going to fix this site.  The site is now broken in Firefox 4 as well.  It looks like a cool tool though.