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

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

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:59:53 -0400
To: public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2k48ukrvq.fsf@nwalsh.com>
John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes:
> 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.

Done.

>> In ยง2 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".

Fair enough. I didn't really intend to imply the creation of a working
group (despite my choice of words!) and I'll soften that language. (I
was only trying to underscore the fact that *we* weren't the right
group to do the job and so readers shouldn't be looking to us to
produce such a document.)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676
www.marklogic.com

Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 14:00:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 September 2011 14:00:25 GMT