[Top] [All Lists]

Re: base-spec issue #1: character escapes

2005-03-08 12:00:20

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Cyrus Daboo wrote:

Hi Rob,

--On March 8, 2005 12:02:27 PM -0500 Rob Siemborski <rjs3(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu> wrote:

While (3) is a cleaner design, introducing a dependency on variable
create the possibility that some implmentation that doesn't want
to implement variables but needs access to NUL, etc will do (1) or
(2) instead, thus defeating the goal of interoperability.  If that
is a plausible risk, then (2) or (1) should be picked from the

I therefore would prefer (2).

Same here.

With (2), do we even need to make the statement that an extension will override the base spec behaviour? After all, that is what extensions implicitly do. i.e. why can't we leave it exactly as it is now in the base spec, and an extension written independently of that.

I think that we should definately add that scripts SHOULD NOT use extranious escapes.

But yes, I don't think we realy need to do anything beyond that in the base spec, though (mentioning that an extension can explicitly override this particular fact is probably unnecessary, unless we define the extension in the base document as well).


Rob Siemborski | PGP:0x5CE32FCC | rjs3(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version: 3.12
GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++ E W+ N(-) o? K- w-- O-
M-- V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ X- R@ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++ h+ r- y?