META charset without MIME type
Jorge wrote:
summary: Fixed handling of META's content-type with no MIME type (e.g. only charset).
Is that legal? It doesn't sound legal.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:11:59PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
summary: Fixed handling of META's content-type with no MIME type (e.g. only charset).
Is that legal? It doesn't sound legal.
Verbatim from HTML-4.01 SPEC: META: [...] content = cdata [CS] This attribute specifies a property's value. This specification does not list legal values for this attribute. -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:11:59PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
summary: Fixed handling of META's content-type with no MIME type (e.g. only charset).
Is that legal? It doesn't sound legal.
Verbatim from HTML-4.01 SPEC:
META: [...] content = cdata [CS]
This attribute specifies a property's value. This specification does not list legal values for this attribute.
Right, MIME types are specified elsewhere and not here in the HTML spec. I imagine this has to do with furaisanjin's "'", and a quick look into the spec suggests that should be getting turned into a "'" if it's an attr. I'll see if I can find what's going on there. PS I was just recently trying to figure out exactly whether quoted attributes can contain '<' or '>', and it's amazing how hard it can be to get a straight answer from the spec sometimes. (I think quite possibly so, but they started talking about CDATA for the content of script and style tags in a way that made the whole thing sort of unclear to me.)
I wrote:
Jorge wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:11:59PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
summary: Fixed handling of META's content-type with no MIME type (e.g. only charset).
Is that legal? It doesn't sound legal.
Verbatim from HTML-4.01 SPEC:
META: [...] content = cdata [CS]
This attribute specifies a property's value. This specification does not list legal values for this attribute.
Right, MIME types are specified elsewhere and not here in the HTML spec.
I imagine this has to do with furaisanjin's "'", and a quick look into the spec suggests that should be getting turned into a "'" if it's an attr. I'll see if I can find what's going on there.
furaisanjin's was inside an attribute, and the content type one delimits an attribute. So the spec says By default, SGML requires that all attribute values be delimited using either double quotation marks (ASCII decimal 34) or single quotation marks (ASCII decimal 39). Single quote marks can be included within the attribute value when the value is delimited by double quote marks, and vice versa. Authors may also use numeric character references to represent double quotes (") and single quotes ('). And the question is whether that last sentence is talking about attribute delimiters, attribute values, or both. I don't know! It looks like a person would have to make the questionable decision to digest the super-mega-horror that is SGML in order to find out.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 07:41:05PM +0000, corvid wrote:
I wrote:
Jorge wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:11:59PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
summary: Fixed handling of META's content-type with no MIME type (e.g. only charset).
Is that legal? It doesn't sound legal.
Verbatim from HTML-4.01 SPEC:
META: [...] content = cdata [CS]
This attribute specifies a property's value. This specification does not list legal values for this attribute.
Right, MIME types are specified elsewhere and not here in the HTML spec.
I imagine this has to do with furaisanjin's "'", and a quick look into the spec suggests that should be getting turned into a "'" if it's an attr. I'll see if I can find what's going on there.
furaisanjin's was inside an attribute, and the content type one delimits an attribute. So the spec says
By default, SGML requires that all attribute values be delimited using either double quotation marks (ASCII decimal 34) or single quotation marks (ASCII decimal 39). Single quote marks can be included within the attribute value when the value is delimited by double quote marks, and vice versa. Authors may also use numeric character references to represent double quotes (") and single quotes (').
And the question is whether that last sentence is talking about attribute delimiters, attribute values, or both. I don't know! It looks like a person would have to make the questionable decision to digest the super-mega-horror that is SGML in order to find out.
Don't worry man. This is more or less cooked. From the link suggested by Rogut?s Sparnuotos: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G110.html I got to: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H76.html which is a W3C's page with an example that uses quotes. Ergo, we will support it. Currently I'm in the process of implementing the "instant client-side redirect" thing, and also want to replace the custom HTML that's injected into the page (the META refresh warning) with a widget (most probably inside the control panel, hidden when not needed). I also want to maybe re-use this widget for the XHTML parsing dilemma. This is: to render or not to render XHTML. Last time I read the specs, XHTML must be validated and not rendered when not valid. In practice, when facing non-valid XHTML, Firefox renders it and doesn't even warn. If we render, and warn, and show the BUGs found in the bug-meter, we'd be closer to the original idea. Comments? -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
Don't worry man. This is more or less cooked.
From the link suggested by Rogut?s Sparnuotos:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G110.html
I got to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H76.html
which is a W3C's page with an example that uses quotes. Ergo, we will support it.
Not parsing the major/minor part because the quotes confused us, though? The type could differ -- I remember that crash Jeremy found where meta changed it to application/xhtml+xml...
Jorge wrote:
I also want to maybe re-use this widget for the XHTML parsing dilemma. This is: to render or not to render XHTML. Last time I read the specs, XHTML must be validated and not rendered when not valid. In practice, when facing non-valid XHTML, Firefox renders it and doesn't even warn. If we render, and warn, and show the BUGs found in the bug-meter, we'd be closer to the original idea.
From a little reading, I get the impression that it has to be well-formed in an xml sense to be rendered, but you can have HTMLish errors like, oh, putting random things in <select> and still render it.
participants (2)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
jcid＠dillo.org