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

Re: XML namespaces on the Web

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:42:15 +0100
To: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Liam Quin" <liam@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u3ms0p0tidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0100, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:

> Simon Pieters scripsit:
>
>> Indeed, but it would be relatively easy to make the XML5 algorithm  
>> report
>> an error for anything that is an error in XML 1.0.
>
> I don't think it would be so easy, unless by reverse engineering some
> existing XML parser, which XML5 as written does not do.

Why would one need to reverse engineer an XML parser? It is defined in XML  
1.0 what is an error, so one can just read the XML 1.0 spec and modify the  
XML5 algorithm accordingly.


>> The DOM doesn't require a root element. For XML APIs that do require a
>> root element, you could use the XML 1.0 behavior for this case and  
>> report
>> a fatal error.
>
> So much for the idea of all octet-sequences being convertible to XML.

It's not clear to me that that is a goal. It would be possible by making  
up a bogus root element, but that seems just bogus. :-)


>> XML5 doesn't ignore the internal subset.
>
> If that's so, it's not expressed in the algorithm as published.  I can't  
> judge
> algorithms that aren't written down anywhere.

I see "DOCTYPE internal subset state" and in total 38 tokenizer states  
dedicated to handling the internal subset in  
http://xml5.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/specification/Overview.html

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 07:43:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:41 UTC