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

Re: New editor's draft of the HTML/XML TF Report

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:34:19 +0200
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org, "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Message-Id: <C28F70B6-3DD8-4E46-8439-0723B11048EB@berjon.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On Sep 26, 2011, at 17:19 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I do not feel too strongly, and please publish if this is all that is holding the document back, but I do think a comment I made earlier still stands. The comparison between how HTML instructs an agent to "recover from markup errors" whereas XML is unforgiving is skewed. I think the reality is more that HTML creates a tree out of any given input and XML defines a number of conditions that will not result in a tree. I think this is important because of the apparent perception that an HTML parser is somehow vastly more complex than its XML counterpart. See e.g. https://plus.google.com/103429767916333774260/posts/R6dPzhbc94R for an example of that.

Likewise, I do not wish to block publication, but I do support Anne's comment. I think that it can easily be addressed.

In 2 of the conclusion, I don't recall this group reaching consensus that we thought a WG should be chartered to work on XML5 if the XML community is interested. I'm not at all against the idea, but I think that pointing in the direction of a WG overstates it. It might make more sense to start with a community group, or an IG. I don't feel overly strongly about this though.

Finally, so far no one has seemed to care the least bit about it, but I'll mention it one last time just in case :) I think that there could be some value in working on points of friction when crossing XML/HTML environment boundaries, as well as on cross-pollination (see http://www.w3.org/mid/C201A791-AD3C-4CC7-BDEE-B44EE2706A3F@berjon.com). I'm perfectly fine with that notion not going into the report if everyone just yawns at it, but I do stick by the idea that looking at stuff "on the other side" as if it might be usefully transferrable mutatis mutandis is more productive than considering that everything linked to a given technology is necessarily stupid and needs to be reinvented in as perfect as possible ignorance of any precedent.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 15:34:43 UTC

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