- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:11:17 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
[Tab Atkins Jr.:] > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 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