- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:00:10 -0400
- To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Rob Sayre wrote: > On 3/5/09 10:04 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> +cc: Chris Wilson >> >> Rob Sayre wrote: >>> The biggest problem is that HTML parsers must reparent elements. This >>> would make discerning in-scope namespaces difficult. >> >> This argument doesn't resonate with me. If properly spec'ed there >> certainly would be cases where the answer wasn't obvious; but if the >> spec simply were to chose one interpretation in such cases, then it >> doesn't seem to me that it would be difficult to implement to that >> spec interoperably. > > I agree that it is possible to effectively specify something confusing. > The question is whether the specified behavior will create a prisoner's > dilemma. If enough users won't understand the specification, and create > content that unintentionally violates it, that's what will happen. I > know you are aware of most of these examples, but I'll include them here > for others: > > 1.) http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardgiles/109523955/ > 2.) http://www.feedparser.org > 3.) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174351#c46 > > http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/41476/trunk/WebCore/xml/XMLHttpRequest.cpp > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174351#c60 > > 4.) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287793 (feed now > contains "o:p" in escaped HTML... victory?) > http://raeldor.blogspot.com/atom.xml > > 5.) > http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/uriloader/exthandler/nsExternalHelperAppService.cpp#2539 > > 6.) > http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2009/02/23/preferred-atom-10-acceptable-rss/ > > 7.) > http://thresholdstate.com/threshold/4163/rss-feeds-valid-useful-or-accurate > > You get the idea. Amusingly, the punch line here is: "Ironically, the Feed Validator issues a warning about the double-encoded case—the only one that worked correctly in both readers." They key word being "both". - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 03:00:59 UTC