W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Error recovery

From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:22:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPJCua1O1XZTcp6Hb+L=B3eUu71QqshBchL89GfGntnio9VKnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: liam@w3.org
Cc: "public-microxml (public-microxml@w3.org)" <public-microxml@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-11-17 at 13:27 -0700, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > > (a) <e a="x"/>, or
> > >
> > > (b) <e a="x/">
> > I prefer (a) since it's the likeliest interpretation of the author's
> > intention.
> <p><a href=/socks/>more interesting articles</a></p>
> (a) is not unreasonable; a better implementation would look ahead and
> find the </a>, although in HTML one could perhaps omit the </a> because
> of the </p> and have the "right thing" happen, because of the
> domain-specific knowledge in the parser. (b) is the right answer here of
> course.

Nice, contrived example, but note my use of "likeliest."  I stand by my

> Since MicroXML is/was aimed at Web usage, I think (b) the better choice,
> *or* build-in to the parser a list of empty HTML elements and use (a)
> for those and (b) for the rest.

I think it's fair to agree to disagree (for my part I agree with others who
have repudiated the HTML5 insanity), and the most important thing is that
the behavior is documented.

Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
Received on Saturday, 17 November 2012 22:22:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:12:12 UTC