- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:21:19 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:16:42 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On 03/06/2011 01:27 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> >> The spec shouldn't say that ignoring backslash escapes is necessary for >> compat (it probably isn't) [...] > > While we don't routinely do this, in reviewing the objections to Change > Proposals put forward for issue 126 it appears that there (might be? > is?) consensus on this point, and furthermore that this addresses the > issue expressed in ISSUE-126, even if it isn't the preferred alternative > of every member of the working group: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/126 > > Per the Decision Policy, "At any stage of the process, the issue can be > settled amicably". Therefore, if a change proposal is put forward in > the next couple of days that captures the above, the chairs have agreed > to issue a Call for Consensus on that proposal. Otherwise, we will > proceed to evaluate the change proposals that we do have. I have to backtrack a bit on this. While I believe it's unlikely that backslash escaping is a big compat issue, I'm not willing to put my name under a Change Proposal that details exactly what aspects of the syntax are necessary for legacy compat and not, since I haven't seen any comprehensive testing and am not willing to spend time on that myself either. >> [...] but handling them is more complicated than >> ignoring them, so I don't think there's any reason to align with HTTP on >> this point unless the whole algorithm (and implementations!) is change >> to exactly match HTTP on all points. > > You are welcome to include this in the Change Proposal. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jan/0356.html> was Anne's proposal. I can live with his proposal, so I won't submit another and will simply state any objections I have in a poll. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 10:21:55 UTC