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

[Bug 11905] Escaping of "<" and "&" in Polyglot Markup

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:43:45 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PirQH-0004pt-9q@jessica.w3.org>

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
                   |                            |ua.no

--- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-01-28 16:43:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> I don't think this document should try to explain the requirements of being xml
> well formed (or of being html valid) If it states such rules in full, it
> becomes vastly larger and if just summarizes them it will get details wrong in
> edge cases.
> I think the document should just state the _additional_ constraints that need
> to be met given a document that is xml well formed and html valid, for it to
> give equivalent DOM trees whether parsed as xml or html.

Then perhaps you should look at what Polyglot Markup already says, right now,
and file bugs if you think it says too much already? Are there things that it
should take out?

I must say that it becomes - to myself - illogicall if the document goes into
the nittygritty of how to make sure that attributes are kept DOM equal (by
taking into consideration XML whitespace normalization in attributes) on one
side, but on the other side ignores to say the farm more important thing that
"<" and "&" have to be escaped. I think that for most authors that want to use
polyglot markup, the DOM equality of attributes, is not of very great

However, I do think that it would be nice if Polyglot Markup summed up its
principles in one section of the document, including pointing to the definining
specs (XML 1.0 and HTML5) for its principles.

You did not comment on bug 11904 regarding <plaintext> and <xmp>. That Polyglot
Markup gives special (but incorrect) rules for how to use <>& inside those
elements, is an example - IMHO - on what happens because the entire Polyglot
Markup document is lacking a) guiding principles and b) looks at the details
instead of listing the general rules. 

In my view, the need to escape < and & is - by the way - so basic, that we do
no need to land in the error of failing ot be accurate enough just because we
say it.

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 Friday, 28 January 2011 16:43:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:04 UTC