W3C

Results of Questionnaire ISSUE-103: XML escaping in iframe/@srcdoc - Straw Poll for Objections

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:

  1. Objections to the Change Proposal to document the characters that must be escaped for XML in srcdoc
  2. Objections to the Change Proposal to defer to the XML specification

1. Objections to the Change Proposal to document the characters that must be escaped for XML in srcdoc

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.

Details

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.

2. Objections to the Change Proposal to defer to the XML specification

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.

Details

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.

More details on responses

  • Julian Reschke: last responded on 22, September 2010 at 13:19 (UTC)
  • Jirka Kosek: last responded on 23, September 2010 at 14:16 (UTC)
  • Leif Halvard Silli: last responded on 30, September 2010 at 03:53 (UTC)

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

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design (preferred) or by mail to sysreq.