- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- cc: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, fantasai wrote: > Yves Lafon wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Bert Bos wrote: >> >>> It doesn't create a special case, but the obligation for an author to >>> escape commas and characters that cannot occur in a value, such as >>> unbalanced parentheses and semicolons: >>> >>> http://example.org/foo?s10,34;x={} >>> >>> would have to be written as: >>> >>> http://example.org/image?s10\,34\;x=\{\} >>> >>> (This creates some 13 tokens, if I counted correctly.) >>> >>> I'm all for omitting parentheses and quotes when possible, but for URLs >>> I don't think it is possible. >> >> Frankly I can't think of an author escaping URIs that way, see how & are >> not escaped in HTML hrefs... using url() which is an existing construct not >> only gives what is expected but also gives the same user experience for >> authors, ie: "Oh for this property should I use url() or not" is a good >> recipe for errors. > > We already have this problem with url(). Commas, brackets, etc. > must be escaped inside url() unless the URI is quoted. The same > rule is proposed for image(): if you have weird characters, or > if you just want to be safe, use quotes. Yes, but if you want to reuse a uri in image(), why adding the unquoted version that needs escaping that nobody will use anyway and not use the url() construct ? It is just confusing, and not only for parsers :) -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:21:39 UTC