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

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

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:37:11 -0400
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Message-ID: <20110926163710.GB4212@mercury.ccil.org>
Robin Berjon scripsit:

> 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.

I agree as well; adopting Anne's language seems appropriate to me.

> 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.

I strongly agree here.  The HTML5 rules work because they reflect what
parsers actually do.  We have no experience with parsing ill-formed
XML, and no way to say what the correct rules would be.  Talk of a WG is
wildly premature.  I would prefer something very vague about "further
investigation".

-- 
John Cowan  http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan@ccil.org
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 16:37:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 26 September 2011 16:37:36 GMT