- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:41:55 -0400
- To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
- CC: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>, www-style@w3.org, member-i18n-core@w3.org
Mark Davis wrote: > The choice of whether to do #2 or #3 in parsing depends on the > environment. In the case of CSS, it'd be nice to see some specific > examples of what happens. For example, for a programming language, the > difference between #2 and #3 is mostly that literals would continue to > work but contain U+FFFD. That is, let's suppose that [X] represents a > defective byte sequence (ill-formed Unicode or escape). Then take the > following examples: > > Stri[X]ng x = "abcdef"; // line 1 > String x = "abc[X]def"; // line 2 > String x = "abcdef"; // line 3[X] ... > But I'm a bit fuzzy on what happens in either case. Take the following: > > h1 { > col[X]or: #990000; > background-color: #FC9804; > background-image: url("butter[X]fly.gif"); > } > > Does #3 mean that all of the attributes of h1 are suppressed in the > above? Or only lines 1 and 3? Under the "replace with U+FFFD" approach, the 'color' declaration would be dropped, and the background-color declaration would be valid. The background-image declaration would be applied, but the request for "butter[X]fly.gif" would be changed to a request for "butter\00FFFDfly.gif" and (assuming "butterfly.gif" is the correct filename) would fail. No background image would be rendered. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 21:42:17 UTC