- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:02:13 +0000
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Henri Sivonen writes:
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 21:23, John Cowan wrote:
>
>> Technically it doesn't have to simply abort: it can return
>> unprocessed information to the application.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0009.html
In that message, you wrote:
> If you consider black box-distinguishable conformance, what's the
> difference between the XML parser signaling an error and handing the
> rest of the stream to the application which hands it to another non-
> XML parser to continue and a parser signaling the first WF error and
> continuing with the rest of the stream itself?
There's at least one crucial difference: in the first case, but not
the second, the "non-XML parser" can know what the application _is_,
and hence have the kind of information necessary for plausible fixup.
All the available fixup technologies I'm aware of, including TagSoup,
PyXUP and HTML5-processors, do fixup based on a knowledge of the
document type involved, without which success is _much_ less likely.
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLBAx1kjnJixAXWBoRAkS8AJ9SX7KOXNWCbX3KXJ/xMn7wiiAqIgCfZGfn
O2yE9bOm4/kXkLWTVBl5y50=
=KBJO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 15:02:56 UTC