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

Re: Draft

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:07:34 +0000
Message-ID: <4F458346.2090104@nag.co.uk>
CC: W3C XML-ER Community Group <public-xml-er@w3.org>
On 22/02/2012 13:51, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> I'd suggest that in cases where the input really doesn't look
> anything like XML (ie whose first non-whitespace character isn't a<),
> an XML-ER parser does whatever it is that HTML does

I think that's probably going too far. If you need that, then mostly it 
works just to give the document to an html parser. (unfortunate breakage 
around /> syntax but that's an old/lost battle:-(

I thought the idea of xml-er was to have a fault tolerant parser but 
_without_ all the weird tree re-arrangement and special casing that html 
needs to do.

On the other hand, the idea of supplying a default document element if 
the document doesn't have one is (probably) good and consistent with 
ensuring the output from xml-er is (or can be serialised as) a well 
formed xml document, whatever the input document looked like.

David
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 00:08:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 February 2012 00:08:11 GMT