- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:38:48 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1524 ------- Additional Comments From fsasaki@w3.org 2005-08-17 04:38 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Here's an attempt to clarify this confusing subject. > > Currently, the serialization specification, when describing URI escaping for the > HTML output method, does indeed contain a reference to XLink; but the detailed > algorithm described is actually by design identical to that described in > Appendix B.2.1 of the HTML 4.01 specification: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/appendix/notes.html#non-ascii- chars > > People have often asked why we escape non-ASCII characters rather than escaping > the characters listed in the XLink specification; it seems useful therefore to > reference the HTML algorithm rather than the XLink algorithm, since that is the > one we are using. (The practical reason for choosing this algorithm is that > using the XLink algorithm doesn't work: in particular, it breaks many Javascript > URIs in typical browsers). > > This proposal (which the WGs have accepted) makes the algorithm which is > currently built-in to the serializer available as a user-callable function, so > that applications can invoke it when they need it and use a different algorithm > when they don't. As a result of this proposal, there is a new F+O function which > refers to the HTML 4.01 specification, and the serialization specification will > refer to this new F+O function to describe the default serialization behavior. > > Does this make things clearer? > > Michael Kay (personal response) Sorry for the late reply. Yes, this makes things clearer. Thank you very much for your explanatation. Felix Sasaki
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2005 04:38:54 UTC