W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2011

[Bug 12073] Permit restricted use of <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:04:47 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PpfBf-0004NT-4Y@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12073

--- Comment #6 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-02-16 11:04:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > 
> > Just to clarify: when I said that
> > 
> > ]] HTML5 should permit the XML declaration as conforming or conforming but
> > obsolete [[
> > 
> > then I meant "inside the text/html syntax". 
> 
> I strongly disapprove of making stuff that goes through the "bogus comment"
> state valid. I also strongly disapprove of changing the parsing algorithm to
> avoid the "bogus comment" state in this case.

Would it be necessary to change the parser?

The underlying assumption here seems to be:

 A) if it is treated as a "bogus comment" by the parser, then it should be
forbidden.
 B) if it is considered conforming, then it should not be considered a "bogus
comment" by the parser.

And, yes, it seems like HTML5 tries to align "bogus comment" and
"non-conforming". 

When I say that it should be considered "obsolete but conforming", then the
assumption of those who are deeply familiar with teh HTML5 parser, will perhaps
be that the XML declaration should  also have an effect? (Similar to how for
instance <a name=foo></a>  has an effect, even if it is obsolete.)

My proposal is that <? ?> should continue to be classified as a "bogus
comment", but that this particular bogus comment nevertheless should be
accepted as permitted in the HTML5 syntax.

Thus, I don't suggest to change the HTML5 parser.

> That is, I think this should be WONTFIX.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 11:04:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 February 2011 11:04:54 GMT