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: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:59:24 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinYiGyy9LUSXucmxcTiGNpio1ex2Fw8JSCX6OS+@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html-xml@w3.org
John,

XML5 is how Henri Sivonen and others on the HTML5 WG are referring to XML
parsed by that parser. HTXML is my own notation for it, since I find the
XML5 notation misleading, with HTXML just indicative of XML as rendered by
the HTML5 parser.

The point I'm trying to make with the last post was that if there was a
formalism within the parsers that can be standardized, then this may be the
best that can be achieved by the task force. That most parsers do parse
"dirty" XML indicates that this may not be that onerous a change - it's just
a question of whether you require that strictness or not.

Kurt Cagle
XML Architect
*Lockheed / US National Archives ERA Project*



On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:39 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> 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 21:00:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 December 2010 21:00:28 GMT