Backslash/semicolon/octothorpe escaping (again)

[xuhdev]

This voting would be similar to #5 but is slightly different. #5 voted that we should not add backslash/semicolon/octothorpe escaping into EditorConfig specification before our specification requires to address this issue. Here are two follow-up questions:

• Should we explicitly declare backslash/semicolon/octothorpe escaping undefined in the EditorConfig specification, or leave them unmentioned?
• Should we remove the existing test case escaped_octothorpe_in_value, which tests octothorpe escaping?

Please vote by commenting below: yes or no only (e.g., yes, yes). Voting will be closed at the end of July 5.

Discussions please go to editorconfig/editorconfig-core-test#24

@editorconfig/board-member cc @rakus

[xuhdev]

yes,yes

[jednano]

yes,yes

[xuhdev]

Ping everybody again: @editorconfig/board-member

[johan]

Not a vote, just pointing out that the first question is ternary, not binary: the set of meaningful votes would be ”yes: state as undefined”, ”yes: leave out”, or ”no: no change”.

[xuhdev]

Not a vote, just pointing out that the first question is ternary, not binary: the set of meaningful votes would be ”yes: state as undefined”, ”yes: leave out”, or ”no: no change”.

@johan The current status is leave out :) (i.e., no change == leave out)

[johan]

Oh, right; 1b) collapses into 1:no). 😄

[sindresorhus]

1. Yes
2. Yes

But we should ensure the issue is not forgotten for the formal grammar.

[rakus]

Yes/Yes

[florianb]

yes, yes

[xuhdev]

So the conclusion is yes, yes

[xuhdev]

Test removed in editorconfig/editorconfig-core-test@2b983f5

[xuhdev]

Clarification added in editorconfig/specification@71e10b3