W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:48:16 +0100
Message-ID: <4BA80FD0.6010600@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 23.03.2010 01:14, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Philip Taylor wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:26:48 +0100, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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."
>>>
>>> That seems incomplete. The sequence ]]>  comes to mind.
>>
>> That's not an issue in attribute values, as far as I'm aware.
>>
>> But in attribute values, U+000D and U+000A and U+0009 must be escaped too.
>> (Depending on DTD you might also need to escape any leading or trailing U+0020
>> and at least one of any adjacent pair of U+0020s, I think.)
>
> This discussion is exactly the reason why including this in the spec is a
> bad idea.

Actually, it's a reason why it *should* be in the spec. If the WG can't 
get it right, why would we want to impose this on the real world? 
Thinking of it, it might be proof that having the attribute in the first 
place is a bad idea.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 00:49:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC