- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 07:30:12 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > 3.6.1 > Item 10. There's a comma missing after '"[")' and before "a modifier". Fixed. > 3.6.1 > Example in item 11. Double quote missing in '"[n? string'. Fixed. > 5. > Step 5. When XML submission is used, characters that are not XMLChars as per > XML 1.0 need to be dealt with. I suggest dropping them. I prefer converting them to U+FFFD. Dropping characters can be the source of very hard-to-debug security problems. Done. > Also, when XML submission is used, CRLF line breaks on the data level > are weird, because the CR would have to escaped in order to preserve it > in XML. I suggest using LF line breaks in XML submission. LF line breaks > in XML may be serialized as literal (unescaped) LF, CR or CRLF. Done. > 5. > Step 5. I think NFC normalization should be applied before using legacy > encodings as well. E.g. Windows-1252 can encode many precomposed European > characters but cannot encode the decomposed versions without precomposing > first. However, in some special cases like Windows-1258 (Vietnamese) it is > necessary to separate some diacritics from the base characters after the NFC > step. (But I imagine Windows-1258 encoders do that themselves.) I don't see that this is a WF2 problem. It's up to the encoding specifications to specify how to encode Unicode characters. > 5. > Step 8. What happens if a 204 response changes the character encoding > metadata? Or Content-Type in general for that matter? This is the realm of the HTTP specification. > 5.2. > "Note that a string containing the codepoint's value itself (for example, the > six-character string "U+263A" or the seven-character string "☺") is not > considered to be human readable and must not be used as a transliteration." > > I agree with the sentiment, but changing that behavior is not > backwards-compatible. Backwards compatible with what? IE's behaviour is broken (there's no way to submit a literal "☺" followed by a U+263A character). It could even be a security risk in certain instances. > 5.3. & 5.5. > "The submission character encoding is selected from the form's accept-charset > attribute. UAs must use the encoding that most completely covers the > characters found in the form data set of the encodings specified. If the > attribute is not specified, then the client should use either the page's > character encoding, or, if that cannot encode all the characters in the form > data set, UTF-8." > > I think sending UTF-8 to unsuspecting form handlers is worse that losing some > unencodable characters. Sending UTF-8 to programs that don't expect it amounts > to garbage in which increases the global amount of garbage out. If they haven't specified an encoding, then using the page's encoding is as much a guess as using UTF-8. The server hasn't said what it expects, it should use the encoding metadata in the submission to deal with this. The sooner we switch to a full-UTF-8/16 solution the better. > 5.4. > Can the presence of the accept-charset attribute be considered non-conforming > when the XML submission type is specified? Seems like a fine thing to warn about. I don't know if it should be an error; what if the page changes the enctype around? > 5.6. and elsewhere > Minor typographical nit: Em dash used with spaces on both sides as opposed to > either em dash without spaces or en dash with spaces. Em-dash without spaces is ugly, and en-dash is too short. IMHO. :-) > 5.6. > "The value of the enctype attribute must be dispatched using a case- > insensitive literal comparison." > > "case-insensitive" marked up as code. Still worried about considering > Turkish i conforming. Yeah... I think HTML5 might switch pure-ASCII attributes' case-folding to ASCII-only. Not sure yet. > 6.1. > "(Even if importing into a text/html document, the newly imported nodes will > still be namespaced.)" > > But will tagName return in upper case? ->HTML5. (Yes. But that isn't specced yet.) > General DOM > Will localName return the name in lower case in HTML DOM? ->HTML5. (Depends on whether the Document is an "HTML" or "XML" Document.) > 6.1. > "The following script has only one possible valid outcome:" > > "Valid" used loosely. :-) Fixed. > 7.10. > Does "mirror" mean "reflect"? Changed to reflect, but note that neither term is well-defined in WF2. > B. > Is the presence of inapplicable attributes in the input element non- > conforming? (I think it would be useful to make inapplicable attributes > non-conforming.) It should warn, for sure, but I don't know that making it non-conforming is useful. As mentioned previously, I don't like making things non-conforming unless they are very clearly wrong. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 00:30:12 UTC