- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:47:05 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/23/2012 01:37 PM, Jonathan Kew wrote: > On 23 Jan 2012, at 07:14, Mathias Bynens wrote: > >>> I personally think that bugs should be filed on the other UAs about the >>> UTF-16 behavior and the spec should be clarified to disallow it, but of >>> course I'm biased. ;) >> >> Anyone else? >> > > FWIW, I agree with Boris (that it is a bug for a UA to accept \xxxx\yyyy, where xxxx and yyyy represent a high/low surrogate pair, and treat this as being the UTF-16 representation of a single non-BMP character). > > The CSS3 Syntax spec (and CSS2, for that matter) is quite explicit that a backslash-hex escape stands for _an ISO 10646 character_; it does not stand for _a UTF-16 code unit_, which is something fundamentally different. > > (But of course I also share Boris's bias!) I agree with Boris and Jonathan, fwiw, and it's not because I'm biased in favor of Firefox, but because I think it's the right thing to do. And given Firefox is getting away with its correct behavior, I don't think there's any need to amend the spec for bugwards compatibility. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 18:47:09 UTC