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

Re: Suggested revised text for HTML/XML report intro

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:32:00 -0400
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "public-html-xml@w3.org" <public-html-xml@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20110816163200.GD8113@mercury.ccil.org>
Anne van Kesteren scripsit:

>> 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.

Please explain with clear and convincing examples why the XML5 approach
is superior to Siefke's algorithm.  Or vice versa, I'm not picky.

>> Without such a justification, all we end up doing is complicating the
>> description of XML further: [...].
> 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.

I say the specification will become more complex, and you reply that the
processor may become less complex.  Non sequitur.

John Cowan
                I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 16:32:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:28 UTC