On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote: > > [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. > I don't think I expressed a preference. I'm just asking for info on what should be UA behavior given current CSS2.1 grammar rules. Actually, I'm trying to fix a few WK bugs in this area, so I'm trying to figure out what is intended in the current grammar [and, incidentally, if there is any though to change it in this regard, e.g., in css3-syntax].Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 05:09:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:22 UTC