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

Re: tag name state

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:29:32 +0100
To: "public-xml-er@w3.org Community Group" <public-xml-er@w3.org>, "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Message-ID: <op.wajjji2c64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:34:35 +0100, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>  
> _If_ we are going to differ from HTML5 at this point I think I would go
> further. We have a hard requirement I think that any tree have a
> serialisation as namespace well formed XML.

Is that really a hard requirement? As I understand it EXI goes beyond  
that, the DOM certainly goes beyond that, HTML goes beyond that (and  
provides coercion rules to get back to well-formed XML), and there's  
probably other examples. I think the approach HTML has taken here is  
better. E.g. earlier we discussed the Char production and that XML does  
not allow U+0008 for instance. Consensus seemed to be that we did not want  
to replace that with U+FFFD but instead keep it in.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 11:29:56 UTC

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