W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 13:13:57 +0200
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Jeff Schiller" <codedread@gmail.com>, "Gareth Hay" <gazhay@gmail.com>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "matt@builtfromsource.com" <matt@builtfromsource.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.truphjkn64w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Sat, 05 May 2007 02:18:05 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
>> Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] wrote:
>>> The spec describes what to do with every possible stream of input
>>> characters.
>> This seems like an unimaginably arrogant statement to me.  (Now you  
>> know why I said the above first.  :) )

I wonder why. The XML specification does the same. It just says that you  
have to abort processing when you hit a certain illegal character where  
the WHATWG HTML5 proposal for HTML parsing says you have to take action X  
when you hit a certain illegal character.

A typical state looks like something like the following:

   Space character
      Switch to state A.
      Parse error.
      Reconsume EOF in state B.
      Emit token.
      Switch to state B.
   Any other character.
      Append character to the name of the current token.
      Stay in this state.

I'm not sure I really see the issue.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 11:14:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:20 UTC