- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:30:07 +0200
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:21:06 +0200, Kornel Lesinski <kornel at geekhood.net> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:37:46 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> > wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Rather not. This would break unencoded URLs: >>> >>> ?foo=bar®ion=baz ? ?foo=bar?ion=baz >> >> You mean that Internet Explorer breaks them already? That doesn't make >> much sense to me. > > No, IE doesn't break them, and that's the point. > > Section 8.2.3.1. states "This definition is used when parsing entities > in text and in attributes." - if I understand this correctly, this makes > semicolon optional for entities in both attributes and text and > "®ion" in attribute would be interpreted as "?ion". > If that's the case, it is not compatible with IE, because it parses > entities differently in attributes and text. In attributes semicolon > (any non-alphanumeric character actually) is required, but in text it is > not. > > In IE6 <a href="®ion">®ion</a> is equivalent to <a > href="&region">?ion</a> Awesome. Guess we have to reverse engineer that too then... -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2007 06:30:07 UTC