- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:40:10 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10901 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |adrianba@microsoft.com, | |annevk@opera.com, | |eric@webkit.org, | |excors@gmail.com, | |franko@microsoft.com, | |hsivonen@iki.fi, | |ian@hixie.ch, | |w3c@adambarth.com, | |zcorpan@hotmail.com --- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-09-30 23:40:09 UTC --- Someone asked what the impact on this on SVG might be so I commented on that topic here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2010Sep/0146.html As far as the proposal goes I don't really have any objections, but it shouldn't be undertaken lightly. I don't think the differences between what we have now and the above proposal are as minor as is suggested. For example, doing this would introduce re-entrant document.write() to SVG content. There's also the risk that the parsing changes aren't compatible with what the Web needs of HTML parsers for HTML <script>. On top of that, it makes the conformance requirements for what HTML <script>s can contain even more complicated, an impressive feat given the current inanely complicated BNF we have to describe what is allowed and what is not. Which is to say, if we do this I think we should get explicit buy-in from people who have already implemented the parser (Adam/Eric, Henri), and from people writing validators (Henri/Mike). Input from people at Opera, from the Safari team, the IE team, and of course from the SVG community would be valuable also. I've tried cc'ing people I know who have Bugzilla accounts and might have a stake in this. -- 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 Thursday, 30 September 2010 23:40:12 UTC