w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2010-09-22 to 2010-09-29.
3 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
We have a Change Proposal to document the characters that must be escaped for XML in srcdoc. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Responder | Objections to the Change Proposal to document the characters that must be escaped for XML in srcdoc |
---|---|
Julian Reschke | |
Jirka Kosek | I think that ISSUE-100 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/100) should be resolved first. The solutions is not to describe XML escaping, but to avoid any need for escaping. |
Leif Halvard Silli | Technical: This issue has been discussed w.r.t. the Polyglot spec, were the conclusions were that U+0020 SPACE escaping "applies only to non-CDATA attributes" [1] and that "[w]ith <!DOCTYPE html>, all attribute are CDATA attributes" [2]. [1]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9965#c10 [2]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9965#c12 The spec should consentrate on describing what happens to CDATA attributes. From that that angle it is incorrect to say that the U+0020 character needs escaping. It is hardly ever necessary to escape non-CDATA attributes, as it is seldom relevant to keep the white space characters of non-CDATA attributes. E.g. consider such non-CDATA attributes as xml:lang or @type - if you escape whitespace in such attributes, then UAs will not interpret them correctly. I will follow up in a mail to public-html. |
We have a Change Proposal to defer to the XML specification.. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Responder | Objections to the Change Proposal to defer to the XML specification |
---|---|
Julian Reschke | See my objections at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0100.html |
Jirka Kosek | I think that ISSUE-100 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/100) should be resolved first. The solutions is not to describe XML escaping, but to avoid any need for escaping. |
Leif Halvard Silli | This change proposal unnecessarily complicate things. The spec should absolutely be a little bit more forthcoming - just as Julian's proposal intends. There is no need for the the document to contain adjectives such as "only". To the extent that XML is more complicated, then this is due to the document production of XML being much broader than what a HTML document is. The spec could define the extra rules that applies to HTML DOM equivalent XHTML - polyglot XHTML - and say (to the the extent that it is true) that further restrictions might apply to other XML documents. |
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.