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>  
wrote:
> 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
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 15:58:03 UTC

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