- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:10:26 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org
Sam Ruby, Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:34:35 -0500: > Whether all of the existing restrictions in the Polyglot document are > necessary, or indeed if they are sufficient, is the discussion we > should be having. +1 One such thing that I have been thinking about lately is use of <![CDATA[ ]]> inside <style> and <script>. Though the bug has a slightly blurry name/description, I filed bug 20201 about this in December.[1] However, I reluctantly chose to accept Jirka’s argument against allowing it. But we should perhaps look at that issue again. Please speak out if you agree. ;-) We have accepted that <![CDATA[ ]]> is not used inside <style> and <script>. And, while it slightly encourages some best practices to have that restriction, it also prevents - or at least makes it difficult - to auto-convert documents with inline scripts to polyglot markup. So personally, in addition to what the spec says today which describes what to do when <![CDATA[ ]]> is not used, I lean towards adding rules for how one may also use <![CDATA[ ]]> in <style> and <script>. And in fact, I remember that Lachlan Hunt, who objected to Polyglot Markup, also put questions marks around the forbiddance of <![CDATA[ ]]>. And, as well, Henri made some (almost correct, at first, and then correct) remarks about the consequences of not allowing <![CDATA[ ]]>, in this recent round of debate about polyglot. If used correctly, then it seems to me that the use of <![CDATA[ ]]> doesn't cause much more DOM difference (perhaps it rather creates less difference) between XML and HTML than the requirement to use both xml:lang and lang. [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20201 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 20:11:02 UTC