W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2009

Re: parsing issue in the editor's draft of css3-image

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
cc: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0907211717030.10144@wnl.j3.bet>
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, fantasai wrote:

> Yves Lafon wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Bert Bos wrote:
>> 
>>> It doesn't create a special case, but the obligation for an author to
>>> escape commas and characters that cannot occur in a value, such as
>>> unbalanced parentheses and semicolons:
>>>
>>>    http://example.org/foo?s10,34;x={}
>>> 
>>> would have to be written as:
>>>
>>>    http://example.org/image?s10\,34\;x=\{\}
>>> 
>>> (This creates some 13 tokens, if I counted correctly.)
>>> 
>>> I'm all for omitting parentheses and quotes when possible, but for URLs
>>> I don't think it is possible.
>> 
>> Frankly I can't think of an author escaping URIs that way, see how & are 
>> not escaped in HTML hrefs... using url() which is an existing construct not 
>> only gives what is expected but also gives the same user experience for 
>> authors, ie: "Oh for this property should I use url() or not" is a good 
>> recipe for errors.
>
> We already have this problem with url(). Commas, brackets, etc.
> must be escaped inside url() unless the URI is quoted. The same
> rule is proposed for image(): if you have weird characters, or
> if you just want to be safe, use quotes.

Yes, but if you want to reuse a uri in image(), why adding the unquoted 
version that needs escaping that nobody will use anyway and not use the 
url() construct ? It is just confusing, and not only for parsers :)

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:21:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:19 GMT