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

Re: David's less simple example

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:09:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4F4D1845.6010100@nag.co.uk>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: "public-xml-er@w3.org Community Group" <public-xml-er@w3.org>
On 28/02/2012 17:57, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> I think it is much much more reasonable

It is more reasonable in that case, but it's a slippery slope. Once you
get things that might be attributes and might be elements and might be
some evil geek just making up bad examples on purpose, then it's
virtually impossible to design a deterministic algorithm that meets
human intuition (even if you restrict to just one human). You just have
to a prove to yourself that the algorithm _is_ deterministic and does do
something sensible in at least the well formed xml input case, and for
the rest just, accept what came out.

The editor use case might be an "overwhelming objection" to quote
myself, that says we should be more different than HTML5, but unlike
"well formed xml" it's a rather vague under specified set of documents
for which we want to ensure a "reasonable" parse.

It would be interesting to know how a more "declarative" fix up would
fix that example (to any result) rather than just saying the result is
whatever comes out of the parsing algorithm.

David




________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 18:09:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 February 2012 18:09:40 GMT