- From: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:54:42 -0400
Le 2007-06-14 ? 21:05, Ian Hickson a ?crit : > I've defined the parsing and conformance requirements in a way that > matches IE. As a side-effect, this has made things like "naïve" > actually conforming. I don't know if we want this. I'd make it non-conforming for the sake of readability. > On the one hand, it's pragmatic (after all, why require the > semicolon?), and is equivalent to not requiring quotes around > attribute values. On the other, people don't want us to make the > quotes optional either. I'm perfectly fine with quotes being optional; I think unquoted attribute values are generally as easy to read as their quoted counterparts, if not sometime easier since you don't have the noise of the quotes. On the other hand, it took me about a minute to figure out the word in your example -- "naïve" -- simply because I couldn't find where to put the delimitation between the end of the entity name and the last few characters in the word. In other words, is this the entity &iu, &ium, ï, ïv or ïve ? Without a list of entities at hand, it takes a lot of guesswork to find the length it consume and the name of the entity. And not everyone can remember all those entity names. Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 19:54:42 UTC