Author: Alexander Borisov

Date: 03/10/2019





Hello everyone!

In this article, I will tell you how to create a superfast HTML parser supporting DOM. We will look at the HTML specification and its disadvantages in terms of performance and resource consumption during HTML parsing.

I assume the reader has a basic knowledge of HTML: tags, nodes, elements, and namespace.

HTML Specification#

Before we implement the parser, it is necessary to understand which HTML specification we should rely upon.

There are two HTML specifications:

WHATWG Apple, Mozilla, Google, Microsoft W3C A long list of companies

Naturally, our choice fell on the industry leaders, namely, WHATWG. It's a living standard; these are large companies, each maintaining its own browser or a browser engine.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, the links don't work if you are located in Russia. Apparently, it's the "echo" of the Telegram throttling attempts by the Man.

HTML Parsing Details#

HTML tree construction can be divided into four parts:

Decoder Preprocessing Tokenizer Tree construction

Let's consider each stage separately.

The tokenizer accepts Unicode characters (code points) as input. Accordingly, we need to convert the byte stream to Unicode characters. For this, we use the Encoding specification.

If our HTML encoding is unknown (there's no HTTP header), we need to identify it to start decoding. To do so, we use the encoding sniffing algorithm.

Essentially, the algorithm is as follows: we wait for 500ms or the first 1024 bytes from the byte stream and run a prescan for the byte stream to determine its encoding; this algorithm attempts to find the <meta> tag with http-equiv , content, or charset attributes to understand which encoding the HTML developer has assumed.

The Encoding specification identifies the minimum set of supported encodings for a browser engine (21 in total): UTF-8, ISO-8859-2, ISO-8859-7, ISO-8859-8, windows-874, windows-1250, windows-1251, windows-1252, windows-1254, windows-1255, windows-1256, windows-1257, windows-1258, gb18030, Big5, ISO-2022-JP, Shift_JIS, EUC-KR, UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, and x-user-defined.

Once we have decoded the bytes into Unicode characters, we need to perform a "sweep". Specifically, we have replace all carriage return characters ( \r ) followed by a newline character (

) with a single carriage return character ( \r ). Next, we replace all carriage return characters with newline characters (

).

That's how the specification has it. Namely, \r

=> \r , \r =>

.

However, in fact, no one does exactly this. It's done in a simpler manner:

If you've got a carriage return character ( \r ), check whether there is a newline character (

) coming. If there is one, we replace both characters with a newline character (

); otherwise, we replace only the first character ( \r ) with a newline (

).

This completes the preprocessing. Yes, all you have to do is get rid of the carriage return symbols so they don't get into the tokenizer. The tokenizer does not expect them and does not know what to do with the carriage returns.

Parsing Errors#

To answer upcoming questions in advance, I should tell now what a parse error is.

It's really not a big deal. It sounds menacing, but in fact it is only a warning: we expect one thing and receive another.

A parse error does not stop data processing or prevent us from constructing a tree. It is a message which says that our HTML is invalid.

The parse error can occur due to a surrogate pair, \0 , wrong tag location, wrong <!DOCTYPE> , etc.

By the way, some parse errors actually have consequences. For example, if you get "bad" <!DOCTYPE> , the HTML tree will be labeled as QUIRKS which affects the logic of some DOM functions.

As mentioned earlier, the tokenizer accepts Unicode characters as input. It is a state machine which has 80 states . Each state has conditions for Unicode characters. Depending on the arriving symbol, the tokenizer may:

Change state Generate token and change state Do nothing and wait for the next character

The tokenizer generates six types of tokens: DOCTYPE , Start Tag , End Tag , Comment , Character , End-Of-File . Which enter the tree construction stage.

Note that the tokenizer does not actually know all its states, only about 40% of them (approximately). "Why all the others?", one might ask. The remaining 60% are used to build the tree.

This is required to parse such tags as <textarea> , <style> , <script> , <title> , and so on properly. Usually, these are tags which we do not expect to contain other tags; they just close.

For example, the <title> tag cannot contain any other tags. Any tags in <title> will be treated as text until a closing tag is encountered: </title> .

Why is it done in such a manner? After all, we could just tell the tokenizer to follow the "path we need" if it meets a <title> tag. And that would be true — if not for namespaces! Yes, the namespace affects the behavior of the tree construction stage, which in turn changes the behavior of the tokenizer.

For example, consider the behavior of the <title> tag in HTML and SVG namespaces:

HTML

<title><span>text</span></title>

The resulting tree:

<title> "<span>text</span>"

SVG

<svg><title><span>text</span></title></svg>

The resulting tree:

<svg> <title> <span> "text"

In the first case (HTML namespace), the <span> tag is text, so no span element was created. In the second case (SVG namespace), an element was created based on the <span> tag. That is, tags behave differently depending on the namespace.

But that's not all. The cherry on top is the fact that the tokenizer itself must know in which namespace the tree construction is happening right now. It is necessary to process CDATA properly.

Consider two examples with CDATA and two namespaces:

HTML

<div><![CDATA[ text ]]></div>

The resulting tree:

<div> <!--[CDATA[ text ]]-->

SVG

<div><svg><![CDATA[ text ]]></svg></div>

The resulting tree:

<div> <svg> " text "

In the first case (HTML namespace), the tokenizer took CDATA for a comment. In the second case, the tokenizer parsed the CDATA structure and extracted data from it. The rule of thumb is as follows: If we meet CDATA outside HTML namespaces, we parse it, otherwise we consider it a comment.

That's the connection between the tokenizer and the tree. The tokenizer needs to know which namespace it is in during the tree construction stage, whereas the stage itself can affect the state of the tokenizer.

Next we consider all six types of tokens that the tokenizer creates. Note that all tokens contain prepared data; they are already processed and "ready for use". This means that all named character references (like © ) will be converted to Unicode characters.

DOCTYPE Token#

The DOCTYPE token has a structure unlike other tags. The token contains:

Name Public identifier System identifier

In modern HTML, the only way valid DOCTYPE can look is similar to this:

<!DOCTYPE html>

All other <!DOCTYPE> s will be considered parse errors.

Start Tag Token#

The opening tag may contain:

Tag name Attributes Flags

For example,

<div key="value" />

The opening tag can contain a self-closing flag. This flag does not affect the closing of the tag, but it can cause a parse error for non-void elements.

End Tag Token#

A closing tag. It shares all properties of the opening tag token, but has a slash ( / ) before the tag name.

</div key="value" />

The closing tag can contain a self-closing flag which will cause a parse error . Also, a parse error will be caused by any attributes in the closing tag. They will be properly parsed, but discarded during the tree construction stage.

Comment Token

The comment token contains the entire text of the comment. That is, it is completely copied from the stream into the token.

Example:

<!-- A comment -->

Character Token#

Perhaps the most interesting token type. It's a Unicode character token. It can contain one (and only one) character.

For each character in HTML, a token will be created and sent to the tree construction stage. It's really expensive.

Let's look at how it works.

Consider this HTML:

<span>Слава императору! ®</span>

How many tokens do you think will be created for this example? Answer: 22.

Consider the list of generated tokens:

Start tag token: `<span>` Character token: С Character token: л Character token: а Character token: в Character token: а Character token: Character token: и Character token: м Character token: п Character token: е Character token: р Character token: а Character token: т Character token: о Character token: р Character token: у Character token: ! Character token: Character token: ® End tag token: `</span>` End-of-file token

Not really comforting, is it? Of course, many HTML parser authors in fact use only one token during this processing step. They recycle it, erasing the data each time.

Let's skip ahead a bit and answer a question: Why is it done in such a manner? Why not accept this text in one piece? The answer is related to the tree construction stage.

The tokenizer is useless without the HTML tree construction stage. It is where the text is glued together according to various conditions.

The conditions roughly resemble the following:

If a U+0000 (NULL) character token arrives, we trigger a parse error and ignore the token. If one of U+0009 (CHARACTER TABULATION) , U+000A (LINE FEED (LF) , U+000C (FORM FEED (FF) , or U+0020 (SPACE) character tokens arrives, we invoke an algorithm to restore active formatting elements and insert the token into the tree.

The character token is added to the tree according to an algorithm:

If current insert position is not a text node, create a text node, insert it into the tree, and add the token data to it. Otherwise, add the token data to the existing text node.

This behavior causes lots of problems. There's the need to create a token and send it for analysis to the tree construction stage for each character. We don't know the size of the text node, so we have to either pre-allocate a lot of memory or perform reallocations. All this is extremely expensive memory and time-wise.

A simple and clear token. There's no data left; we simply pass this news to the tree construction stage.

Tree construction#

Tree construction involves a finite state machine with 23 states and many token-related conditions (tags, text). Tree construction is the largest stage; it occupies a significant part of the specification itself (the side effects may include lethargy and extreme frustration).

Everything is very simple. Tokens are accepted as input; depending on the token, the state of tree construction is altered. As the output, we have a real DOM.

The following issues seem obvious:

Character-by-character copying

At the entry point, each state of the tokenizer takes one symbol, which it copies or converts if necessary: these are tag names, attributes, comments, symbols.

It is very wasteful both in memory and in time. We have to allocate an unknown amount of memory for each attribute, tag name, comment, and so on. This, consequently, leads to reallocations and eventually to wasted time.

If we assume, for example, that our HTML contains 1000 tags, and each tag has at least an attribute, then we get a hell of a slow parser.

Character token#

The second problem is the character token. Apparently, we create a token for each character and pass it to tree construction. The construction stage does not know how many tokens we will have and can not immediately allocate memory for the desired number of characters. Accordingly, here we have all the same reallocations and continual checks for text nodes in the current state of the tree.

Monolithic system#

The ubiquitous dependencies between virtually everything are a real issue. The tokenizer depends on the tree construction, and the tree construction can affect the tokenizer. All of this happens because of namespaces.

How to solve issues?#

I am going to outline an HTML parser implementation in my Lexbor project, as well as solutions to all problems voiced here.

For starters, let's get rid of the preprocessing. Instead, we upgrade the tokenizer to understand carriage return ( \r ) as a whitespace character. Therefore, it will be passed to the tree construction stage where we shall actually deal with it.

With a slight movement of the hand we unify all tokens. Instead, we use a single token for everything. Moreover, there will be only one token in existence during the entire parsing process.

Our unified token contains the following fields:

Tag ID Begin End Attributes Flags

Tag ID#

We will not deal with the text representation of the tag name. Instead, we translate everything into numbers. They are easier to compare and to work with.

We create a static hash table for all known tags. Let's create an enumeration of all known tags. That is, we need to assign a specific ID for each tag. Accordingly, in the hash table, the key will be the name of the tag and the value will come from the enumeration.

An example:

typedef enum { LXB_TAG__UNDEF = 0 x 0000 , LXB_TAG__END_OF_FILE = 0 x 0001 , LXB_TAG__TEXT = 0 x 0002 , LXB_TAG__DOCUMENT = 0 x 0003 , LXB_TAG__EM_COMMENT = 0 x 0004 , LXB_TAG__EM_DOCTYPE = 0 x 0005 , LXB_TAG_A = 0 x 0006 , LXB_TAG_ABBR = 0 x 0007 , LXB_TAG_ACRONYM = 0 x 0008 , LXB_TAG_ADDRESS = 0 x 0009 , LXB_TAG_ALTGLYPH = 0 x 000 a, }

As you can see from the example, we have created tags for the END-OF-FILE token, the text, and the document. All this for sake of further convenience. Opening the curtain somewhat, I should say that we will have a Tag ID in the node (DOM Node Interface). This is done to avoid two comparisons: for the node type and for the element. That is, if we need a DIV element, we perform a single check in the node:

if (node-> tag_id == LXB_TAG_DIV) { }

But you can certainly do this:

if (node-> type == LXB_DOM_NODE_TYPE_ELEMENT && node-> tag_id == LXB_TAG_DIV) { }

The two underscores in LXB_TAG__ are required to separate the common tags from the system tags. In other words, the user can create a tag called text or end-of-file ; if we later search for the name of a tag, no errors will occur. All system tags start with the # character.

But still, the node can store a textual representation of the tag name. For 98.99999% of nodes, this property will be set to NULL . In some namespaces we need to prefix or name the tag using specific case. For example, baseProfile in SVG namespace.

The logic is simple. If we have a tag with a specific case:

Add it to the general tag base in lower case. Get the tag ID. Add the tag ID and the original tag name in plain text to the node.

Custom tags (custom elements)

The developer can create any tags in HTML. Because our static hash table stores only those tags that we know about, but the user can create any tags, we need a dynamic hash table.

It looks very simple. When a tag arrives, we check if it exists in the static hash table. If there is no such tag, we search the dynamic table; if it stores no such tag as well, we increment the ID counter and add the tag in the dynamic table.

All of the above occurs at the tokenizer. All comparisons in the tokenizer and later use Tag ID (with rare exceptions).

Begin and End#

Now we've got rid of data processing in the tokenizer. We do not copy or convert anything. We only get start/end data pointers.

All data, such as symbolic links, will be processed during the tree construction stage.

Thus, we will know the data size for subsequent memory allocation.

It's just as simple. We don't copy anything, we just maintain start/end pointers of name and attribute values. All transformations occur at tree construction.

We have streamlined the token types, so we need to make a note of the token type for the tree. For this, we use the Flags bitmap field.

The field can contain the following values:

enum { LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_OPEN = 0 x 0000 , LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_CLOSE = 0 x 0001 , LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_CLOSE_SELF = 0 x 0002 , LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_TEXT = 0 x 0004 , LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_DATA = 0 x 0008 , LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_RCDATA = 0 x 0010 , LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_CDATA = 0 x 0020 , LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_NULL = 0 x 0040 , LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_FORCE_QUIRKS = 0 x 0080 , LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_DONE = 0 x 0100 };

Beside the opening/closing token type, there are values for the data converter. Only the tokenizer knows how to convert data correctly. The tokenizer marks the token so that the data is processed accordingly.

Character Token#

We can now conclude that the character token has effectively disappeared. Yes, now we have a new type of token: LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_TEXT . Again, we create a token for the entire text between tags, noting how it should be processed in the future.

As a result, we need to change the conditions in tree construction. We need to update it to support text tokens instead of character tokens: convert them, delete unnecessary characters, skip spaces, and so on.

There is nothing complicated. Changes in tree construction will be minimal. However, the tokenizer now vastly deviates from the specification. But we don't actually need this, that's OK. Our task is to get the HTML/DOM tree fully compliant with the specification.

Tokenizer stages#

To speed up data processing in the tokenizer, we add our own iterator at each stage. According to the specification, each stage accepts a single symbol and, depending on the symbol, makes some decisions. But the truth is, it's very expensive.

For example, to move from the ATTRIBUTE_NAME stage to the ATTRIBUTE_VALUE stage, we need to find a whitespace character in the attribute name, which will indicate its end. According to the specification, we have to feed characters one by one to the ATTRIBUTE_NAME stage until we meet a whitespace character, so the stage toggles to another stage. This is very expensive; usually it is implemented with a function call for each character or a callback like " tkz->next_code_point() ".

Instead, we add a cycle to the ATTRIBUTE_NAME stage to pass the entire incoming buffer. In the cycle, we look out for the characters that alter the stage to continue working at the next stage. Here we get a lot of gain, even without the compiler optimization.

But! The worst thing is, we break the out-of-the-box chunking support with this update. When we had character-by-character processing at each stage of the tokenizer, we supported chunks, but now we have broken the support.

How to fix it? How to implement chunking support?! It's simple: enter the concept of incoming buffers.

Incoming buffer#

Often, HTML is parsed in chunks; for example, if we receive data over the network. To avoid idling for the remaining data to arrive, we can send the received data to processing/parsing. Naturally, the data can be "split" anywhere. For example, we may have two buffers:

First buffer

<div clas

Second buffer

s="oh-no-oh-no">

Since we do not copy anything at tokenization but only get start/end pointers to the data instead, now we have a problem. It's effectively pointers to different user buffers. Given the fact that developers often use a single buffer to store data, we are dealing with a pointer to the beginning of non-existent data.

To resolve the issues, we need to understand when the data from the user buffer is no longer needed.

The solution is basic:

If we parse data in chunks, copy every incoming chunk into an incoming buffer. Having parsed the current chunk (previously copied), we check whether there was an unfinished token earlier. That is, whether there are pointers to current user buffer in the last token. If there are no pointers, we release the incoming buffer; if not, we leave it as is until it is needed. In 99% of cases, the incoming buffer will be destroyed when the next chunk arrives.

The "copy incoming buffer" flag can be controlled. For single-chunk data, there's no copying.

Of course, this logic can be optimized and expanded. We can avoid copying the entire buffer in advance, instead copying only the necessary data (the remaining tail) after processing and retargeting the token pointer to our new buffer. It would be better and faster. However, this optimization is premature at the moment. Current implementation is fast and memory-efficient enough.

A problem: the data in the token#

With chunk parsing figured out, you can breathe easier. But there is another problem with our pointer-based approach: At some point, we need to look at the token data. And we can't do just that. If we need to look at the token data, we will have to glue them together (if they belong to different chunks), and it is wildly time-consuming. The specification indicates a couple moments where it's necessary to see what we have accumulated in the token so far.

This problem is solved in a simple manner: We add new processing steps in the tokenizer. That is, we know in advance when the checks occur, so we can go different ways during data processing in the tokenizer.

Tree construction stage#

Here, changes are minimal.

We no longer have character tokens, but we use text tokens instead. As a result, we need to update the construction stage to support the new token type.

Here's how it looks:

According to specification

tree_build_in_body_character ( token ) { if (token. code_point == '\ 0 ') { } else if (token. code_point == whitespaces ) { ' } }

In Lexbor HTML:

tree_build_in_body_character ( token ) { lexbor_str_t str = { 0 }; lxb_html_parser_char_t pc = { 0 }; pc. drop_null = true; tree-> status = lxb_html_token_parse_data ( token , & pc , & str , tree->document->mem-> text ); if (token-> type & LXB_HTML_TOKEN_TYPE_NULL) { } }

As you can see from the example, we have removed all character-based conditions and created a common function for text processing. An argument with data transformation settings is passed to the function:

pc. replace_null pc. drop_null pc. is_attribute pc. state

Each stage of tree construction has its own conditions for character tokens. Sometimes we need to drop \0 s, and sometimes we replace them with a REPLACEMENT CHARACTER. Sometimes it is necessary to convert the symbolic links, sometimes not. All these modes can collide in any conceivable way.

Of course, it all sounds simple. In fact, you need to be very careful. For example, all whitespace characters before the <head> tag should be discarded. There's a problem if a text token arrives with whitespace before text: " some text here ". We should drop the spaces at the beginning of the text and see if there is anything left; if there's data to be processed, continue processing it as a new token.

After all updates, we have a complete superfast HTML parser with support for DOM/HTML Interfaces that builds an HTML/DOM tree in full compliance with the HTML specification.

To sum up everything we've changed:

Removed pre-processing (relocated to the tokenizer) Tokenizer Added incoming buffers

Streamlined the tokens

Used Tag IDs instead of names

Character token: Not one character, but N+ characters

An iterator in each state

Token processing during tree construction

A single token for everything Tree construction Modified character-based conditions

As a result, a single core of 2012 i7 yields an average parsing rate of 235MB per second (Amazon pages).

Of course I know how to increase this measure by 1.5–2 times, so there's still an opportunity. But I need to move on. Actually, next comes CSS parsing and creating your own grammar (Grammar, that is, generation of effective code for Grammar-based parsing).

The approach to parsing and HTML tree construction outlined here is implemented in my own Lexbor HTML.

Our next article will discuss CSS parsing and Grammar. As usual, the article will be accompanied by real code.

For those who have time#

Feel free to help the project. For example, if you like to write documentation in your spare time.

Do not hesitate to support the project with your hard-earned money. PM me for details.

Thank you for your attention!#