- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:06:05 +0100
- 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