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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:04:48 GMT