7672 2009-09-18 09:14:25 +0000 </p> shouldn't be ignored in "before html", "before head", "in head", "in head noscript", "after head". It should be reprocessed through to "in body" like </br>. 2010-10-04 13:55:12 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other CLOSED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-before-html-insertion-mode NE P3 normal LC 1 contributor ian ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking zcorpan public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 27284 0 contributor 2009-09-18 09:14:25 +0000 Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-before-html-insertion-mode Comment: </p> shouldn't be ignored in "before html", "before head", "in head", "in head noscript", "after head". It should be reprocessed through to "in body" like </br>. Posted from: 83.252.193.59 27349 1 ian 2009-09-20 10:57:14 +0000 IIRC, we used to do that, actually, and we removed it either for compat, or because it wasn't required for compat and we were trying to keep the craziness to a minimum, I don't recall which. It's definitely a conscious choice to have it the way it is now. If there's a concrete reason to change it, please let me know. (Basically, we'd need the URI of a site that breaks because of the way it is now.)