Change proposal for issue 103, was: ISSUE-103 change proposal

On 17.03.2010 02:31, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Please remove me as a volunteer for writing a change proposal for
>> Issue 103. I believe that what I write for the change proposal for
>> Issue 101 will preclude any need for this change proposal.
> I have removed you as volunteer:
> If anyone else wants to volunteer to write a proposal for this issue,
> please speak up.
> ...

I'm attaching a change proposal below. Note that removing @srcdoc (see 
ISSUE-100) would address this issue as well; but let's keep separate 
things separate.

Best regards, Julian

-- snip --


Specification is needlessly vague about XML escaping requirements when 
discussing iframe/@srcdoc.


Spec should properly balance considerations for text/html and 
application/xhtml+xml. If the requirements are spelled out for the 
former the same should be done for the latter.


Spec currently says:

"Note: In the HTML syntax, authors need only remember to use U+0022 
QUOTATION MARK characters (") to wrap the attribute contents and then to 
escape all U+0022 QUOTATION MARK (") and U+0026 AMPERSAND (&) 
characters, and to specify the sandbox  attribute, to ensure safe 
embedding of content.

Note: Due to restrictions of the XML syntax, in XML a number of other 
characters need to be escaped also to ensure correctness."

Replace the last sentence by:

"Note: Due to restrictions of the XML syntax, in XML the U+003C 
LESS-THAN SIGN (<) needs be escaped as well."


1. Positive Effects

More clarity about the XML syntax; equal treatment of both formats.

2. Negative Effects

Repeats information that already is defined somewhere else, but this 
applies to the paragraph about HTML as well.

3. Conformance Classes Changes


4. Risks

The statement might not be totally accurate, in which case we can use 
the regular review and bug fixing process to get it right. That being 
said I believe it is accurate, as it's not about encoding characters in 
XML in general, but just about *additional* requirements for attribute 



Received on Thursday, 18 March 2010 10:27:25 UTC