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: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:20:24 -0400
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090603182023.GA2543@mercury.ccil.org>
Simon Pieters scripsit:

> 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.


> >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.  

Almost.  If you read the definition, it's possible for an XML processor
to report "unprocessed input" to its client after a fatal error.  It just
so happens that nobody bothers.

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

No spec can constrain the behavior of things that don't claim conformance
to the spec (or claim it falsely).

> 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".

XML folks don't want error recovery.

The Unicode Standard does not encode            John Cowan
idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
use characters, nor does it encode logos
or graphics.                                    cowan@ccil.org
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:21:00 UTC

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