- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:00:34 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 24.03.2010 04:45, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > ... > Julian & Philip, how confident are you that the full set of characters > that need escaping is U+003C, U+000D, U+000A, U+0009 and U+0020? Does & > need to be escaped? > ... I'm 99% confident. Philip already pointed out one oversight, but there may be more. That's why we have WG to review this. An alternative point of view is: why do we introduce a new attribute that is so hard to get right that we don't dare ourselves to describe how? And yes, "&" needs to be escaped, just as in HTML. That's why the change proposal says: "as well". > Speaking in my non-chairing capacity, I think it is better to have > correct advice than no advice, but worse to have incorrect advice than > no advice. Is there anything we can do to review what characters may be > special in an attribute value? > ... Testing? How is this different from the advice for text/html? Why give advice for one format but not the other? Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 15:24:28 UTC