7062 2009-06-29 02:53:37 +0000 replace terms "CDATA element" and "RCDATA element" with... something better 2010-10-04 14:31:49 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified All All CLOSED NEEDSINFO http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#elements-0 P2 normal --- 1 mike ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking zcorpan public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 25771 0 mike 2009-06-29 02:53:37 +0000 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#elements-0 The current draft uses the terms "CDATA element" to describe <script> and <style> elements, and "RCDATA element" to describe <title> and <textarea> elements. I think it would be good to consider replacing those with other terms. The problem is that "CDATA" already has a number of meanings[1] that conflict with one another. [1]http://www.flightlab.com/~joe/sgml/cdata.html So it seems less than ideal to introduce a new term that potentially adds even more ambiguity and confusion around what "CDATA" means. All that said, I can't at the moment think of any better terms with which to replace CDATA and RCDATA and that would themselves be accurate and less confusing. But maybe other people have some some specific suggestions. 25773 1 mike 2009-06-29 03:26:26 +0000 Maybe just "replaceable character data" for RCDATA, and "non-replaceable character data" for CDATA. 26311 2 ian 2009-08-08 01:41:16 +0000 I replaced CDATA with "raw text". Would you like me to change RCDATA also? 26319 3 mike 2009-08-08 13:23:36 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > I replaced CDATA with "raw text". Would you like me to change RCDATA also? If you're going with "raw text", then maybe RCDATA could be "replaceable text" or "parsed text". 26321 4 ian 2009-08-08 19:12:32 +0000 I don't think either of those is any clearer than RCDATA, to be honest. Replaceable how? How is it parsed any more or less than "raw text"? 26571 5 zcorpan 2009-08-20 22:16:00 +0000 RCDATA stands for "replaceable character data", so "replaceable text" seems like a better term for it, along with a note saying it means text that can have character references. 26573 6 mike 2009-08-21 01:46:42 +0000 (In reply to comment #5) > RCDATA stands for "replaceable character data", so "replaceable text" seems > like a better term for it, along with a note saying it means text that can have > character references. Calling it any kind of "text" at all, and thus needing to add a note to say that it's text that can contain character references, is the reason I suggested "replaceable character data" initially. What the spec currently defines as "text" cannot contain character references. Also, what it defines "text" has two possible forms: - "raw" text that is allowed to contain unparsed markup characters - "non-raw" text that is not allowed to contain unparsed markup characters ...where "unparsed markup characters" essentially means the character "<" and the strings "<!--" and "-->". So there are three ways in which the text/html syntax allows those two forms of text to be combined with character references: 1. non-raw text that can be combined with character references 2. raw text that can be combined with character references (RCDATA) 3. raw text that cannot be combined character references One way to describe the above more succinctly is: 1. normal character data 2. replaceable character data 3. non-replaceable character data Or maybe "raw character data" would be a better term for #3 (which is what the spec now calls "raw text" and which it previously called "CDATA"). But regardless, the term "character data" seems very useful as a general term for describing all three of those possible combinations, and each of them could be defined specifically by preceding "character data" with some adjective to describe what type of character data it is. 26885 7 ian 2009-09-07 10:19:05 +0000 I don't see why we'd use "character data" instead of the simpler "text". Distinguishing between "normal text" and "replaceable text" leads to the question of in what sense "normal text" isn't "replaceable". So I'm still at a loss for a better term than the opaque "RCDATA". 26950 8 mike 2009-09-09 04:07:29 +0000 (In reply to comment #7) > I don't see why we'd use "character data" instead of the simpler "text". Because text, as defined in the spec, cannot contain character references. So it's useful to have a term that means "text mixed with character references". > Distinguishing between "normal text" and "replaceable text" leads to the > question of in what sense "normal text" isn't "replaceable". Yeah, I agree that's a problem with choosing any non-opaque term. > So I'm still at a loss for a better term than the opaque "RCDATA". I agree that the term "RCDATA element" as defined in the spec is unambiguous. So... lacking anything new to say here and no better suggestions than what I've given so far, I'm fine with you moving this to FIXED if you don't think there are any remaining changes that could be made. 33129 9 mjs 2010-03-14 14:48:21 +0000 This bug predates the HTML Working Group Decision Policy. If you are satisfied with the resolution of this bug, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html This bug is now being moved to VERIFIED. Please respond within two weeks. If this bug is not closed, reopened or escalated within two weeks, it may be marked as NoReply and will no longer be considered a pending comment.