W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Suggested revised text for HTML/XML report intro

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:54:46 +0200
To: "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "public-html-xml@w3.org" <public-html-xml@w3.org>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
Message-ID: <op.v0bc5lvf64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:09:00 +0200, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>  
wrote:
> The problem is that there is no compelling reason to prefer one approach
> to any other.

Of course there is. Processing XML requires no schema.  Processing XML in  
a lenient manner should not suddenly require a schema.


> Without such a justification, all we end up doing is
> complicating the description of XML further: instead of being able to say
> "report a fatal error", we must specify in detail exactly what infoset to
> produce for violations of each of the 83 productions, 12 well-formedness
> constraints, and 8 miscellaneous fatal-error specifications in XML 1.0
> (Fifth Edition).

In terms of complexity continuing processing or halting because of an  
error does not matter much. Because you have to check less character  
ranges a processor that just continues in face of errors might actually be  
less complex.

The idea that a tokenizer that does not halt in face of errors and  
produces output per a given data model is more complex is false. (HTML,  
WebVTT, CSS, event streams, XML5, are all testament to this.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 15:55:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 August 2011 15:55:32 GMT