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: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:00:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4BA9AA82.1020509@gmx.de>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC