On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 22:54 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
> This is currently being raised with the EG for clarification. I'll let
> people know when I receive a response. It should be ~3 weeks max.
Ok, cool :)
Rémy
-
To unsubscri
This is currently being raised with the EG for clarification. I'll let
people know when I receive a response. It should be ~3 weeks max.
Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PR
Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> Mark,
>
> I tend to agree with your reading of the EBNF grammar there, but I think that
> the grammar is wrong.
Unfortunately, we have to implement the spec. If we think it is wrong we
can ask the EG for a clarification but in the mean time we should be compliant.
> Th
2008/9/19 Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
>>> In JSP 2.1 spec there is chapter
>>> JSP.1.6 Quoting and Escape Conventions
>>> - see "Quoting in Attributes" part there.
>>>
>>> Thus, IMHO, ${\'string literal\'} will be valid if used as the value for
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
>> In JSP 2.1 spec there is chapter
>> JSP.1.6 Quoting and Escape Conventions
>> - see "Quoting in Attributes" part there.
>>
>> Thus, IMHO, ${\'string literal\'} will be valid if used as the value for
>> an attribute of custom tag.
I've looked at this
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 12:45 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Tags are involved so it looks like this is a bug in Tomcat rather than the
> TCK. Maybe a regression from my fix for 45427? It might just be me but
> anything in Jasper to do with EL seems really fragile.
I am not aware of this failure, so it
Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> In JSP 2.1 spec there is chapter
> JSP.1.6 Quoting and Escape Conventions
> - see "Quoting in Attributes" part there.
>
> Thus, IMHO, ${\'string literal\'} will be valid if used as the value for
> an attribute of custom tag.
>
> The example from the spec
> "/>
> become
2008/9/19 Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> With the recent fixes to the EL code it appears that there is a bug in the
> TCK. I won't repeat the exact test since the TCK licence won't let me do
> that but a simple version is that the TCK thinks the following expression
> should be valid:
>
> ${\'s
With the recent fixes to the EL code it appears that there is a bug in the
TCK. I won't repeat the exact test since the TCK licence won't let me do
that but a simple version is that the TCK thinks the following expression
should be valid:
${\'string literal\'}
For those of you with access to the
