You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 25, 2021. It is now read-only.
This ambiguity can lead to faulty behaviours in converters/validators. And since these two are equalent, yet one of them is containing some extra data (the split positions), the converters/validators can't reliably produce the same output.
Suggestion: The specification should be strict about this, and should not allow a string literal to be followed by another one, that is, the next one should be an HTML-like element.
Note: This new behaviour should be in either v2.1 or v3.0!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
One can look at this problem from a tooling-perspective as well: the specification should remain the same as it is now, but the tools should add some sanitisation before/during the validation/conversion. Which unfortunately means, it needs a secondary temporary representation, the sanitised one, which is not ideal from the speed/memory-size point of view.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Right now the specification allows the following:
which is essentially the same thing as:
This ambiguity can lead to faulty behaviours in converters/validators. And since these two are equalent, yet one of them is containing some extra data (the split positions), the converters/validators can't reliably produce the same output.
Suggestion: The specification should be strict about this, and should not allow a string literal to be followed by another one, that is, the next one should be an HTML-like element.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: