- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 23:39:45 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 02:10:26 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > The question, I guess, is which of the following do we think is more > > important: > > > > * Helping authors not write HTML markup that might be hard to convert to > > XML, and helping authors avoid nesting comments accidentally, by > > flagging "--" sequences in comments > > > > * Getting out of the way of authors who want to put "--" sequences in > > comments, e.g. because they use "--" as a long dash (as I do all the > > time!), or because they want to comment out punycoded URLs. > > > > Currently the spec assumes the former is more important. Personally, I > > think the latter is rather more useful, but then I use "--" as long > > dashes all the time! When this was last studied, the weight of argument > > was on the stricter "disallow --" side of things, presumably. > > > > I'm open to changing this back; does anyone else have an opinion on this? > > I think the main concern back then was compatibility with legacy > browsers. I would not mind easing the restriction as relatively soon all > browsers will have HTML5 comment parsing. And given that <!-- and --> > are clear delimiters disallowing -- does not make a whole lot of sense. On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > I'd prefer to keep the cases where infoset coercion has to kick in for > valid documents to a minimum. (But I might be optimizing the wrong thing > if the larger population doesn't care about infosets.) I've left this as-is for now. I think on the long term it might make sense to change the spec to allow "--" in a comment but disallow "<!--". But let's leave this for now. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 16:39:45 UTC