W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > June 2009

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

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:03:52 +0200
To: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uuym4qb2idj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:32:45 +0200, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:

> Simon Pieters scripsit:
>> 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.
> The Infoset spec does that.

No, it just defines a model of a parsed tree, just like the DOM Core spec  
defines a separate model of a parsed tree. The mapping from bytes to the  
tree model is not explicitly defined like it is in HTML5.

>> 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.
> No known XML processor does anything but abort parsing on any fatal
> error.

That's because if they don't, they are by definition not an XML processor.  

There are user agents and libraries that process content that is labeled  
as XML and do not abort upon errors, though.

> In particular, making any further changes to the DOM or issuing
> any further SAX events other than endDocument is forbidden.  See the
> definition of 'fatal error' in 1.2.

I understand that this is the case as currently specified. I was just  
trying to state my understanding of "HTML folks think the XML
spec is broken because it doesn't define error recovery".

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:04:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:40 UTC