Re: XHTML character entity support

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org> wrote:
>
> 01.11.2009, в 13:43, Shelley Powers написал(а):
>
>> As it is, I'm not sure if the issue related to the original request
>> was specifically about named entities in HTML5, or the fact that
>> browser companies are inconsistent -- they allow named entities in the
>> document, but not in the innerHTML page fragments.
>
> I want both to be fixed. If you go back to the original e-mail, you can see
> that the latter was an example in parentheses.
>
>> Again, though, I don't think this requires codifying in HTML5. Perhaps
>> bugs need to be filed with browser companies that provide named
>> entities based on the XHTML 1.0 doctypes, but don't provide the named
>> entities in innerHTML.
>
>
> This is already codified (unsatisfactorily) in HTML5, see
> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#xml-fragment-parsing-algorithm>.
> HTML5 is the authoritative spec for all aspects of innerHTML behavior, so
> I'm not sure why you think this should be somehow left unspecified.
>
> - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov
>
>

Alexey, have you filed a bug in the W3C bugzilla database on this yet?

>From what I'm reading, you have two requests. The first is that if the
UA supports named entities in the main document, it should support
those same named entities in the page fragment. This impacts on
innerHTML.

The second is that the HTML5 specification normalize what has been
semi-practiced by UAs, mainly browsers, in that all XHTML is given
access to the named entities that would normally be available if the
parser was a validating parser. That was past behavior, and based on
the doctype given with the document.

Now, though, we're doing away with any concept of DTD. XHTML5 UAs are
just supposed to assume these named entities, even though such an
assumption can cause inconsistencies with parsers.

I wanted to copy a quote from the WhatWG email lists, where this item
arose before[1]:

"While there are arguments on both sides of whether this is a good idea or
not, I think the more important concern in this case is whether we can
extend XML in this way. I think in practice we should leave this up to the
XML specs and their successors. I don't think it would be appropriate for
us to profile the XML spec in this way."

Shelley

[1] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020163.html

Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 22:35:15 UTC