Simon Pieters wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:57:23 +0200, Addison Phillips > <addison@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: >> Having a validator or parser to flag it would tell people what was wrong >> with their file. > > Indeed. > >> U+FFFD is an acceptable option, but less desirable only because it >> produces no sign of why the failure occurred. > > I don't understand why a parse error produces any more sign of why the > error occured than replacing with U+FFFD. I don't understand it either. I cannot see a reason why user agent couldn't log (and possibly display) a warning when it sees a U+FFFD. The U+FFFD is inserted exactly where the illegal character was so it shouldn't be too hard to locate it, if necessary. Is there any case where such a character would be the intented character in a CSS file? As Steven Zilles wrote, the visitor/reader/user of the content is not interested if the page doesn't look that good because of a parser error or because of U+FFFD. If the page *author* wants to validate his source document he can do so and a good validator would display a warning or at least a notice about a U+FFFD in the source. -- MikkoReceived on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 10:20:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:51 GMT