- 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
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. True. > >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