Re: [css2.1] tokenizer syntax - handling escaped null in badstring

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <>wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Glenn Adams <> wrote:
> > OK, but as the current syntax is written for the escape non-terminal, it
> > will definitely match an escaped NULL. I would have preferred to see NULL
> > excluded from escaping, i.e., always treating it as EOF/EOS for the
> purpose
> > of defining normative tokenization processing.
> Just depends on how browsers do it.

I'm referring to what the spec would have one do, as opposed to what UAs
actually do. Do you agree the tokenizer rule as specified would consume an
escaped NULL (whether or not a UA actually allows a NULL to get that far)?

Received on Sunday, 7 October 2012 04:30:52 UTC