- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:23:15 -0800 (PST)
- To: public-html-xml@w3.org
John Cowan wrote: > > HS: So, the pattern is formalized in HTML5. An alternative is > > using > > <STYLE>. > > Does that really work? Yes: http://livedom.validator.nu/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cstyle%20type%3Dnot%2Fknown%3E%0A%3Cfoo%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fhsivonen.iki.fi%2FFooML%22%3E%0A%3Cbar%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Ffoo%3E%0A%3C%2Fstyle%3E The tokenization of the content of <style> is not the same as the tokenization of the content of <script>, though. <style> is less magic. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tokenization.html#rawtext-less-than-sign-state vs. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tokenization.html#script-data-double-escaped-less-than-sign-state > 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 > HTML. 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 hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 08:24:20 UTC