W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > July 2013

RE: call 10 July? (Re: Comments on section 6.2 of ITS 2.0)

From: Pablo Nieto Caride <pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:21:17 +0200
To: "'Jirka Kosek'" <jirka@kosek.cz>, "'Yves Savourel'" <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Cc: "'Daniel Glazman'" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>, 'Mārcis Pinnis' <marcis.pinnis@Tilde.lv>, "'Thomas Ruedesheim'" <thomas.ruedesheim@lucysoftware.com>
Message-ID: <197701ce7d5f$989a57a0$c9cf06e0$@linguaserve.com>
Hi all,

As HTML implementer I would vote for including the CDATA o the XML comments inside the script to save me the burden of doing it myself, anyway I know that I'm dealing with HTML5, so it's not really a concern to me, so if changing the spec is too messy I would leave things as is, even if it implies more trouble for HTML implementers.

I think that the problem here is to reach consensus as Jirka said.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka@kosek.cz] 
Enviado el: domingo, 07 de julio de 2013 23:30
Para: Yves Savourel
CC: 'Daniel Glazman'; public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org; 'Pablo Nieto Caride'; 'Mārcis Pinnis'; 'Thomas Ruedesheim'
Asunto: Re: call 10 July? (Re: Comments on section 6.2 of ITS 2.0)

On 7.7.2013 22:12, Yves Savourel wrote:

> c) If the CDATA option is the proper technical thing to do, we should probably go for that even if it gives us quite a bit of extra work.

This issue is not technical decision -- to boil it down: we must decide whether ITS processing of XHTML should be more aligned with XML or with HTML.

It's unlikely to reach unanimous agreement here -- vendors of XML tools would argue that XHTML is using XML syntax and thus any embeded markup should be included as is (ie. not escaped using CDATA sections).

Where vendors of HTML tools would likely argue that XHTML processing should be as much aligned with HTML as possible and thus embeded ITS markup should be escaped, so unescaping (additional parsing step) should be done both in HTML and XHTML.

Both parties have point, I don't think that there is win-win solution.
Because of this I would recommend to keep the current approach. Doing otherwise we will just shift pain to different place.

Personally I can most lightly live with special rules for HTML as HTML parsing is already full of quirks (Did you know that <br></br> would produce two br elements in DOM? - http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cbr%3E%3C%2Fbr%3E).


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep.
    Bringing you XML Prague conference    http://xmlprague.cz
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 11:21:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:28 UTC