- From: Henri Sivonen <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 09:50:17 +0000 (UTC)
- To: w3c/webcomponents <webcomponents@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 5 March 2018 09:50:41 UTC
I'm sorry I missed the @ mention the first time round. Like @annevk says, I'm very reluctant to tweak the HTML parsing algorithm. It's not just a matter of browsers tearing open at something that's well-tested and that we've achieved interop on. It's also a matter of various other pieces of software being able to trust that their implementation of the HTML parsing algorithm matches what browsers do. This may even have security implications. It's hard enough to get Web developers to believe that the right way to sanitize HTML is to use a real HTML parser that implements the algorithm from the spec. It's even worse if that's a moving target. As for the use case shown in the initial report, isn't that what the `is` attribute is for? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/630#issuecomment-370365364
Received on Monday, 5 March 2018 09:50:41 UTC