- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 06:42:10 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20201 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED URL|http://dev.w3.org/html5/htm |http://dev.w3.org/html5/htm |l-xhtml-author-guide/#ambig |l-xhtml-author-guide/#ambig |uous-strings |uous-strings-in-script-and- | |style Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- Except typos and bad wordings and lack of enough examples, I have now fixed this bug. (Though, of course, feel free to reopen based on exactly those omissions.) ;-) But note that I did not make it it unpermitted to use comments inside CDATA. The reasons being a) it *remains* unpermitted to use comments outside CDATA - this is now basically polyglotâs only *extra* rules w.r..t comments in script/style. b) scripts themselves could insert comments or, if the scripting language is a actually a markup language, then the scripting language could include comments. c) the HTML5 validator already catches *some* comments (it catches comments that can be misinterprted - see HTML5 for the exact spec) d) there is no will to build validators that support extra rules for polyglot, therefore the extra rules should be as few as possible. e) While *one* of my JavaScript books had *one*, half-hearted example of unnecessary comments *inside* a CDATA section, the bulk of stupid use of comments inside style/script are *not* found *inside* CDATA sections but outside CDATA sections (or in script/style without CDATA sections) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 06:42:17 UTC