- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 02:50:23 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, ?istein E. Andersen wrote: > > 1) Is it useful to handle unterminated entities followed by an > alphanumerical character like IE does? The number of documents for which > this actually helps might be small compared to the number of documents > that contain other, incorrigible errors. The process also introduces > errors, albeit not in conforming documents. Is the gain worth the added > complexity? > > If so, then should this apply to all entities? (Probably not.) Would it > be useful to add to/remove from the set supported by IE7? (This may seem > insane, but we should try to avoid premature decisions.) > > 2) HTML 4.01 allows the semicolon to be omitted in certain cases. Does > this cause problems? Firefox and Safari both support this, and it would > seem meaningless to change the way conforming documents are parsed > unless it can be shown that, e.g., "&ndash " actually is supposed to > mean "&ndash " more often than "– ". (Conformance is a > separate issue.) > > 3) Will new entities ever be needed? If yes, can new entities adopt > existing conformance criteria and parsing rules? > > 4) Similar considerations for entities in attribute values. New entities have since been added, and the rules for parsing entities (sorry, "named character references") have been changed a bit. However, I am reluctant to change this from what we have now, since what we have now works well. How strongly do you feel about this? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 19:50:23 UTC