- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:35:40 -0400
- To: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, member-i18n-core@w3.org
Addison Phillips wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm writing on behalf of the Internationalization Core Working Group. In > our most recent teleconference, we discussed this issue again. > Basically, the options for handling out of range Unicode escapes were: > > - do nothing/permit the invalid code point > - replace with U+FFFD > - generate a parse error > > The first option is a security risk and shouldn't be seriously > considered. Either of the other options could potentially be a valid > choice. > > We note that this issue has to do with an escape sequence representing a > Unicode character. It shouldn't be associated with transcoding errors > from legacy encodings, although it could result from a bug in an escape > generator. That is, such malformed sequences are generated purposefully. > > We feel that the best response to this issue is to generate a parse > error. Use of the replacement character might mask errors in the style > sheet (since there is no obvious failure or failure location), while it > is unlikely that the resulting sequence would produce the desired > stylistic behavior anyway. I just looked at the i18n WG minutes for this issue, and I note that your minuted discussion skipped over some of the more relevant responses to your concern, specifically http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007May/0081.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jun/0056.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jun/0062.html To summarize, replacing the out-of-range escape with U+FFFD will in almost all cases have the same effect as treating it as a parse error. The exception is in string values, where for URIs it will result in a broken request and for content generation it will result in the printing of U+FFFD. If the i18nwg has already discussed these responses and decided the existing solution is still not acceptable, please explain in more detail why this approach is a problem, as to me it seems like a very simple and practical solution. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 21:36:02 UTC