W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [css2.1] tokenizer syntax - handling escaped null in badstring

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:08:15 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dZhjpqXBrLgWuHQx_oWNDxMzj+bXQQzVHp4JDskwzXcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote:

>
> [Tab Atkins Jr.:]
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > > OK, but as the current syntax is written for the escape non-terminal,
> > > it will definitely match an escaped NULL. I would have preferred to
> > > see NULL excluded from escaping, i.e., always treating it as EOF/EOS
> > > for the purpose of defining normative tokenization processing.
> >
> > Just depends on how browsers do it.
> >
> If content legitimately depends on NULL byte handling then implementations
> are certainly the first step. More important than what they do is why. I
> also wouldn't mind hearing more about why Glenn prefers NULL to be excluded
> from escaping.
>

I don't think I expressed a preference. I'm just asking for info on what
should be UA behavior given current CSS2.1 grammar rules. Actually, I'm
trying to fix a few WK bugs in this area, so I'm trying to figure out what
is intended in the current grammar [and, incidentally, if there is any
though to change it in this regard, e.g., in css3-syntax].
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 05:09:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT