- From: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:14:51 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>, www-font@w3.org, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On 20 Jun 2010, at 11:00, Chris Lilley wrote: > On Sunday, June 20, 2010, 12:48:04 AM, Laurence wrote: > > LP> Liam, > > LP> Are you saying you support, in principle, the idea of a vast and > LP> complex raw XML document (ok, maybe without the <?xml ... ?>) as the value of a key-value pair? > > No, he is saying he does *not* support the idea of a vast and complex and obfuscated XML document as the value of an attribute :) To bring up a real use case: Let's say that some time hence, because of widespread badly-formed webfont deployment, it becomes desirable to bundle a small example XHTML file, or XHTML fragment, in the metadata showing how to write webfont code, intending for this code to be used as a template by HTML editors such as Dreamweaver, or to help WordPress blogs with webfonts. We use the key "sample-xhtml". Should the value be entity-encoded or not? - L
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 18:15:29 UTC