Re: ISSUE-126: charset-vs-backslashes - Straw Poll for Objections

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