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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:57:20 +0100
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Philip Taylor" <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u92w9uzg64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:00:34 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
> 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?

It is only hard in XML and that is because XML itself is hard. For HTML it  
is trivial to get right.

>> 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?

a) The dominant use will be in HTML. b) The advice for HTMl is trivial  
compared with what you need to know for XML.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 15:58:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:14 UTC