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

Re: Error recovery

From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:28:09 -0500
To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Cc: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>, "public-microxml (public-microxml@w3.org)" <public-microxml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1353202089.4860.286.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 05:49 +0700, James Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:

> Since MicroXML is/was aimed at Web usage, I think (b) the better choice,
> >
> 
> I agree that representing HTML-based markup languages is an important use
> case for MicroXML. However, it seems a bit of a leap to argue for a
> particular interpretation for all MicroXML documents based on one HTML
> example. There are HTML examples that go the other way, such as:
> 
> <img src=socks.jpeg/>

agree 100%, didn't mean to imply HTML was the only use case. But it's an
important one, as is that of Web designers using µXML for other reasons.

> *or* build-in to the parser a list of empty HTML elements and use (a)
> > for those and (b) for the rest.
> 
> 
> I don't like this at all.

Neither, I admit, do I, but it seemed worth suggesting.

> If <img src=socks.jpg/> means <img
> src="socks.jpg"/>, then <script src=socks.js/> should mean <script
> src="socks.js"/>.

I think that's a reasonable principle.

> Overall, (a) seems the best choice to me.

I'm not wedded to either. But does
  <a href=/g/socks/>
end up as
  <a href="/g/socks"/>
?

That would actually work in most cases (becasue of http redirection) so
maybe it'll be OK anyway, although it's not so good with rdf or
namespace URIs!

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 01:29:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 18 November 2012 01:29:12 GMT