W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > April 1997

Re: Sudden death: request for missing input

From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:21:05 +1000
Message-Id: <199704281021.UAA30428@jawa.chilli.net.au>
To: <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>

> I agree that if XML were to be used in the current single-purpse way that

> HTML is, i.e. exclusively for browsing, then error recovery would be
> desirable.  But I do not, and so remain convinced that we have to
> make a strong statement in order to achieve a violent break with this
> one particularly pernicious cultural characteristic of the Web.

On further reflection, I would support lexical errors causing sudden death
*if* the XML-link language were smart enough to be able to request
the rest of a document after a lexical error.  That would allow some
resynching. Is it?  

Consider the following fragment:

<layer>
<p id="p1" lang="en">
  A < B   <!--* an error *-->
</p> 
<p id="p2" lang="th">
  A &lt; B
</p>
</layer>

Is XML-link currently defined in such a way that if we died at the error in
"p1",
we could still  then request "p2" et seq.?    Maybe this just
bifurcates the whole lexical thing into XML being strict for applications &
data but robust for
navigation & linking.  

Rick Jelliffe
Received on Monday, 28 April 1997 06:24:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:25 EDT