Editorial: remove incest joke

[dauwhe]

The note at the end of the adoption agency algorithm section reads:

This algorithm’s name, the "adoption agency algorithm", comes from the way it causes elements to change parents, and is in contrast with other possible algorithms for dealing with misnested content, which included the "incest algorithm", the "secret affair algorithm", and the "Heisenberg algorithm".

It seems wiser to end the note after "change parents." Fixed downstream already.

[miketaylr]

Not to defend what seems like poor taste in an algorithm name, it seems like these refer to actual algorithms used by browsers, rather than just a joke:

https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/17/2011/11/30/22-24

@gsnedders wrote:

The incest algorithm is IE<9 (as well as legacy modes in IE9, esp. quirks), though in IE10 quirks mode doesn't use it; the secret affair algorithm is Opera < 11.60; and the Heisenberg algorithm is Firefox < 4

[dauwhe]

Not to defend what seems like poor taste in an algorithm name, it seems like these refer to actual algorithms used by browsers, rather than just a joke:

Thanks for researching that! Googling turned up nothing useful. I suppose the question becomes: is documenting the names of algorithms that are no longer used of benefit to the spec, given the language is distasteful?

[gsnedders]

The naming of the algorithms used by legacy browsers is a joke; the names don't exist outwith of that note. (I don't know if "adoption agency" has any history before HTML5 using it, probably not?)

[gsnedders]

The "incest" case is shown in, e.g., http://ln.hixie.ch/?count=1&start=1037910467 where d.previousSibling is also d.parentNode.parentNode (and the DOM terminology is where the name comes from).

[annevk]

Adoption agency algorithm originated in Safari (see also the acknowledgments section), but I think @Hixie came up with all the algorithm names.

As they're mostly of historical relevance, documented in more detail in that blog post, and the reference to them is probably not understood by the majority of people I agree we should simply remove mention of them.

[annevk]

I'll let @domenic land. Suggested commit title:

"Editorial: remove alternative HTML parser algorithm names"

[domenic]

I'd like to retain the history although I agree that the exact names don't seem useful as e.g. they don't turn up good Google results. Instead could we update this PR to make "other possible algorithms" link to the blog post? Then getting rid of the rest of the sentence is fine, and the change becomes a net addition to the spec instead of a removal. WDYT @dauwhe?

[dauwhe]

Works for me!

[rniwa]

I'm not certain retaining old historic algorithms is useful at this point. Major browsers have been shipping the HTML5 parser for 5-6 years by now. What's the use of documenting those historical parser behavior for authors and implementors reading the spec?

If anything, people can look at old copies of the HTML specification to read about? If anything, we can just move this to some note for historical purposes.

[domenic]

@rniwa we are already discussing the contents of a note that exists for historical purposes.

[domenic]

@dauwhe did you want to add the link I suggested (when you have time), or shall I? Happy to do so, just let me know.

[dauwhe]

@dauwhe did you want to add the link I suggested (when you have time), or shall I? Happy to do so, just let me know.

Feel free to add it, given that your infinitely better understanding of the issues will lead to better language. Thanks!

[rniwa]

@rniwa we are already discussing the contents of a note that exists for historical purposes.

I meant a separate note document, not a note in the spec itself.

[domenic]

@annevk mind re-reviewing and/or landing? Commit message suggestion:

Editorial: remove alternative HTML parser algorithm names

Instead, link to a blog post post detailing them and their origins.

[annevk]

Needs to be & I think.

[annevk]

Thanks again @dauwhe!