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

Re: Deployment and media types

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:56:22 +0000
Message-ID: <4F4E74D6.5070408@nag.co.uk>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: public-xml-er@w3.org
On 29/02/2012 18:35, Mark Baker wrote:

> Likewise, if I send "<hello>there</goodbye>" as application/xml, I'm
> evoking the XML 1.0 specification via RFC 3023 to indicate how my
> message should be interpreted. As we all know, that's not well-formed
> XML and so it's interpretation is "null".

No, if you send non well formed XML to an XML processor, it has to flag 
an error, but the application is free to do anything it likes after the 
error is flagged. If parsing with xml-er and parsing with xml produce 
the same result on well formed xml, then it seems perfectly OK to me to
parse with xml-er instead asn as I aid initially externally it is the 
same as parsing with xml and just parsing with xml-er on failure.

Are you really saying that an existing xml editor that allows you to 
edit and fix broken xml is non conformant in showing the file?

If at the end we decide it would be helpful to add a pointer to xml-er 
in the xml media type RFC we could do that but that's not really a 
concern at this stage.

Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 18:56:46 UTC

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