Re: HTML/XML Task Force Minutes 11 Jan 2011

John Cowan wrote:
> >    HS: So, the pattern is formalized in HTML5. An alternative is
> >    using
> >    <STYLE>.
> Does that really work?


The tokenization of the content of <style> is not the same as the tokenization of the content of <script>, though. <style> is less magic.

> IIUC, descendant elements of STYLE are parsed
> and
> then the value (in the XSLT sense) is taken. So it wouldn't work for
> embedding unescaped XML, because the XML would wind up being parsed as

That's not how it works.

> >    <hsivonen> existing browsers wouldn't honor NORUN
> True, but that matters only for a few media-types that might be run.
> In particular, it's safe to say that text/plain would never be run (in
> which case the "what to do with it" could be recorded in one of the
> data-*
> attributes or other extensibility points).

I think Noah's later observation that since NORUN would do nothing in browsers that don't recognize the value of the type attribute authors would fail to use NORUN at random is a much stronger reason against NORUN.

Henri Sivonen

Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 08:24:20 UTC