From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: None (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=8.23.224.62; helo=out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com; envelope-from=kevin@carhart.net; receiver= Received: from out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com (smtp-auth.no-ip.com [8.23.224.62]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF4D477C83 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 21:25:14 -0700 (PDT) X-No-IP: carhart.net@noip-smtp X-Report-Spam-To: abuse@no-ip.com Received: from carhart.net (unknown [99.52.200.227]) (Authenticated sender: carhart.net@noip-smtp) by smtp-auth.no-ip.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9B5E7321 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 21:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carhart.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carhart.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v7Q4PhSH002652 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 21:25:43 -0700 Received: from localhost (kevin@localhost) by carhart.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id v7Q4PhcW002646 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 21:25:43 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 21:25:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Kevin Carhart To: Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com In-Reply-To: <20170725185648.eklhad@comcast.net> Message-ID: References: <20170719113834.eklhad@comcast.net> <20170725185648.eklhad@comcast.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: [Edbrowse-dev] (something other than) whitespace nodes X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.24 Precedence: list List-Id: Edbrowse Development List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 04:25:16 -0000 Thanks for pointing this out. I guess I took something overly literal that is not a part of the generic principle they're getting at in the test. Clearly node-ifying every '\n' in every web page isn't common or important or we would have hit it previously.. I could have keyed in to this fact sooner. Oh well. I was only in tidy for a short time, and the exploration seems useful anyhow. On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Karl Dahlke wrote: >> I haven't been able to get additional nodes created out of newlines > > Not sure how hard we should work on this, or even if we want it, just to pass an acid test. > It probably has no bearing in the real world, and who wants all those empty nodes cluttering up the tree? > For now I think we should just delete or comment out line 227 in the acid test file, > it's just understood that this line is nulled out, then test 0 should pass and we move on. > Let's get the value out of the acid tests without becoming obsessed over them. > That's my gut feeling right now. > > Karl Dahlke > _______________________________________________ > Edbrowse-dev mailing list > Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com > http://lists.the-brannons.com/mailman/listinfo/edbrowse-dev > -------- Kevin Carhart * 415 225 5306 * The Ten Ninety Nihilists