Re: Element Whitelisting

Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Ian-
> Ian Hickson wrote (on 3/23/09 11:16 PM):
>>>  This issue seems to come down to a matter of preference.  The SVG WG
>>>  sees disadvantages in such whitelisting, and doesn't see value in it.
>>>  Modulo some technical reason, we still oppose the inclusion of
>>>  whitelists, and ask instead that wording similar to what we've proposed
>>>  be used to solve the issue. [1][2]
>>>  [1] 
>>>  [2] 
>> Woah, how are we supposed to reason about what the parser requires if we
>> don't actually list the tags explicitly? It seems dangerous to not make
>> the list explicit. I'd be far more concerned about us accidentally
>> introducing tags that we didn't intend to introduce if we didn't have to
>> make sure we kept a list up to date.
>> This also moves the burden of listing the tag names from us to the
>> implementors, which would inevitably be a source of bugs.
> Who said it shouldn't be an explicit list?  You think the explicit list 
> should be in the HTML 5 spec, which risks getting out of sync with the 
> SVG spec, and the SVG WG thinks that the explicit list should be in the 
> SVG specs, where the elements and attributes are actually defined.
> Where would the confusion and bugs come in?

We aren't at Last Call just yet, so for now can we provisionally put
this list in both documents?  I simply hoping that we can deal with the
substantive issues first, and defer briefly the organizational and
editorial issues.


> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 05:51:55 UTC