W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-er@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Draft

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:22:51 +0000
Message-ID: <4F42F1EB.2030402@nag.co.uk>
To: public-xml-er@w3.org
On 20/02/2012 23:42, Jeni Tennison wrote:

> ...

> First, I don't think we should call a parser that does error
> recovery an 'XML Parser', because that will just confuse people or
> rub them up the wrong way (make them think that we're redefining
> XML). Perhaps call it a 'Recovering XML Parser' instead? (Or does
> that sound too much like 'Recovering Alcoholic'?) And instead of:
> This specification defines the parsing rules for XML documents,
> whether they are syntactically correct or not.
> say something like:
> This specification defines the rules for building a tree from XML
> documents and documents that purport to be XML documents but are not
> well-formed.

I agree that the input shouldn't be described as "XML" but it needn't
purport to be XML either. If I choose to parse "<foo>a</bar>" with this
parser I don't need to (or get the document to ) purport that is XML, I
just want an XML-compatible result so I can bash it with XSLT (typically)

So something like

   This specification defines the parsing rules for documents,
   producing an XML compatible <infoset>. The input need not be
   well formed XML.

(<infoset> here could be <DOM> or whatever other term we use for the
output tree, as in your second point below.

> ...

> Second, I think we need to reach some kind of agreement on what it
> is exactly that a Recovering XML Parser creates,...

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 01:23:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:47:26 UTC