W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > December 2010

Re: What problem is this task force trying to solve and why?

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:39:24 -0500
To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <20101222203924.GD19901@mercury.ccil.org>
Kurt Cagle scripsit:

> The challenge that I see XML5 introducing is that it requires a change not
> only in validation behavior, but also in what is considered well-formedness,
> and I would argue that it is the latter issue that needs to be of bigger
> concern to both HTML and XML groups.

I don't know what you mean by XML5.  Do you mean XHTML5 (a well-formed
and valid application of XML), or do you mean XML 5th Edition, which did
indeed introduce a change in XML 1.0 well-formedness?  (Hey, I tried it
first the right way with XML 1.1 and failed.  Then I tried it again with
XML 1.0 5th Edition, and the jury is still out.)  Or do you mean HTML5?

> Perhaps at least one solution to this particular dilemma is to ask whether
> such tolerance should reside not within the language itself but within the
> parser and serializer. 

That seems to me equivalent to having two parsers, an XML and and HTML one,
that feed the XML stack, which is what we already have in a number of flavors.
There are half a dozen HTML parsers and perhaps twice as many XML parsers
that provide SAX or DOM or both in a pluggable (or potentially pluggable)
way.  For serializers, we have the XSLT serializer, which is already
tunable to XML or HTML.

> property for the relevant parsers that would interpret the XML content
> strictly as XML 1.0 when set as #strict, or HTXML when set to #lax.

Now you are saying "HXTML".  What's that?

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a contract.
       --Specht v. Netscape
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2010 20:39:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 December 2010 20:39:56 GMT