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

Re: tag name state

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 20:06:18 +0000
Message-ID: <4F53CB3A.7000505@nag.co.uk>
To: public-xml-er@w3.org
On 04/03/2012 18:44, Robin Berjon wrote:
> as advantages that none of the alternatives have:
>       We already have a lot of the specification work done.
>       It takes the "HTML at the front of an XML pipeline" case into account.
>       It uses the DOM, which is the simplest and loosest model.
>       It is more user(-agent)-friendly.
> In general it also seems (to me) a lot closer to the sort of things
> that people in the HTML/XML TF or at XML Prague have indicated they
> were interested in doing.

I agree that the web/dom usage should be the driving use case, however 
I'm not convinced that tweaking the tokenisation rules to ensure that 
the DOM constructed corresponds to well formed XML is a major burden to 
place on xml-er processors. If xml-er isn't just to be used for xhtml 
and is to position itself as a general purpose "xml recovery" parser 
specification, I think producing output usable by applications expecting 
xml parser output is an absolute requirement.

I don't see why enforcing that the element names match the XML Name 
production impacts on _any_ of the advantages you list above.

Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 20:06:40 UTC

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