- 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
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