Re: XML namespaces on the Web

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> ...
>> I've been trying to figure out where exactly the disagreement between 
>> us lies, but I think we can all agree on the following:
>>
>> 1. There are applications that have the need and/or desire to implement
>>    non-draconian error recovery for documents created with the
>>    intention of being XML, but for whatever reason are not well-formed.
>>
>> 2. In order to achieve interoperability among such applications, it is
>>    necessary to have a specification that clearly defines how to parse
>>    documents intended to be XML and recover from any fatal errors.
>> ...
> 
> For the record, I do not support 1), thus also not 2).
> 
> BR, Julian

Clarifying: I disagree with "...we can all agree on ... they have a need 
to implement non-draconian...".

In IRC, RSS was pointed out as an example; as far as I can tell, that's 
the only case where content reliably is broken (is it still?), but given 
the history of the various RSS dialects, I really have trouble including 
those into the family of XML vocabularies :-)

BR, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 15:02:18 UTC