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 17:06:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4BAA386D.8000206@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org
On 24.03.2010 16:57, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.

Actually, it's the same in XML, except for one character and attribute 
value normalization.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 16:06:42 UTC

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