dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
>  Hmm, OK. But there are no errors now (i.e. doc.errors is undefined,
> which is causing the test failure). Maybe htmlparser fixed itself?? Do you
> think this test can be removed?****

> ** **

> I agree on switching parsers; after looking through the issues list, that
> seems like it would help with quite a lot. It’s on my medium-term
> to-look-into list, after a Sizzle replacement to fix all our querySelector
> problems. Good to know what the issues might be though.****

> ** **

> *From:* jsdom@googlegroups.com [mailto:jsdom@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Elijah Insua
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 10, 2012 02:59
> *To:* jsdom@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Can anyone see why this tests is valid?****

> ** **

> This is a flawed attempt to ensuring all errors are captured. This test is
> based on a flaw in the parser which causes this test to log a 'Invalid
> character in tag name: "+"' error.  I believe it was a test case gleaned
> from a user, but that was a year ago :).****

> ** **

> Ideally, we push this upstream (assuming it isn't a jsdomism) to
> htmlparser.  To be completely honest with you, I'd love to see jsdom use
> Arial's html5 parser by default.  I've wanted this for years but there
> always seems to be some sort of hurdle (i.e. jsdom is too strict for the
> tag/attribute names html5 is going to throw at it).****

> ** **

> ** **

> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Domenic Denicola <
> dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:****

> The following looks like it should NOT give a parser error, even though
> the test is expecting it.

>   parser_failure_tag_in_text_content : function(test) {
>     var thrown = false;
>     try {
>       var doc = jsdom.jsdom('\
> <SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript"> \
> document.write("<SCR"+"IPT TYPE=\'text/javascript\'
> SRC=\'...\'><\/SCR"+"IPT>");\
> </SCRIPT>');
>     } catch (e) {
>       thrown = true;
>     }

>     test.ok(doc.errors.length === 1);
>     test.ok(doc.errors[0].message === "invalid markup");
>     test.ok(thrown === false);
>     test.done();
>   }

> Any ideas why the tests would be expecting it? I tried bisecting to find
> the first place this started failing, but it looks like it's been failing
> ever since it was introduced.****

>  ** **