- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:41:34 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > The new treatment of < inside tags is > * Potentially very confusing for authors > * Different from previous de jure parsing > * Different from what shipped Gecko and WebKit do. > > Therefore, please add an entry for < to tag name state, before attribute > name state, attribute name state, after attribute name state and > attribute value (unquoted) state: > > U+003C LESS-THAN SIGN (<) > Parse error. Then treat according to the "Anything else" entry below. On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > How is this character different from &, ", ', etc.? The element > eventually created would be non-conforming anyway. On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > Anne pointed out on IRC that I hadn't properly considered the tag name > state, before attribute name state, attribute name state and after > attribute name state being caught on a higher layer anyway. I don't want to add too many parse errors, so yeah, I recommend we leave it up to the higher-level layers here. > In the case of attribute value (unquoted) state Gecko and WebKit already > do what the spec says. It is highly confusing though. It's only confusing to us because we know about SGML, I don't think most people would be confused. On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Simon Pieters wrote: > > "<" in unquoted attribute values works interoperably. No need to make it > a parse error in the attribute value (unquoted) state. On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > This doesn't mean it should be conforming either (actually, it's > entirely orthogonal). Parse errors are for conformance checkers, and I > believe those should report "<" in unquoted attribute values as errors. On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > Neh: <a title=2<5 href=http://www.whatwg.org/>WHATWG</a>. Maybe a > warning at the discretion of conformance checkers. On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > The source code looks like it parses to something different than it > actually does. This makes typos harder to spot. I've made this a warning > in my working copy. I think a warning is fine. I'm not really convinced it should be non-conforming though. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 21:41:34 UTC