Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2009 June 3

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:18:14 +0200, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

> Henry thought it was verbose but ok. Liam suggests that the sentence
>
> [[
> A document is still well-formed, even if it is not in a normalized form.
> ]]
>
> should be changed to.
>
> [[
> A document may still be well-formed even if it is not in a normalized  
> form.
> ]]
>
> With this proposed change, let's put this in countdown.

Is this intended to be an RFC2119 "MAY"? That doesn't make much sense to  
me. Maybe "might" is a better word here.


>> HTML request for clearer XML serialization
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Henry raised the issue that HTML folks think the XML
>> spec is broken because it doesn't define error recovery
>> and doesn't discuss serialization.
>>
>> ACTION to Henry:  Send email to the XML Core WG list
>> outlining the suggestion to define a serialization spec
>> including the rationale.
>
> Pending.

I think the issue here is that the XML spec doesn't define how to convert  
a stream of bytes into a parsed tree (in terms of some tree model -- HTML5  
uses the DOM as the model but this does not restrict implementations to  
use DOM). The XML spec just states what is the allowed syntax, and the  
mapping to a tree model is implied.

I also think it's an issue here that the XML spec doesn't say what an XML  
processor should do if it does not abort parsing upon a syntax error. The  
HTML5 spec says how to do this for HTML (and allows the UA to abort upon a  
syntax error).

See  
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#parsing


-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software