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

[Tab Atkins Jr.:]
> 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.
If content legitimately depends on NULL byte handling then implementations 
are certainly the first step. More important than what they do is why. I 
also wouldn't mind hearing more about why Glenn prefers NULL to be excluded 
from escaping.

Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 16:11:51 UTC