- From: James Aylett <sja20@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 21:11:46 +0100 (BST)
- To: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- cc: Chad Owen Yoshikawa <chad@CS.Berkeley.EDU>, Stephanos Piperoglou <spip@hol.gr>, www-html@w3.org
On Fri, 9 May 1997, Paul Prescod wrote:
> I would encourage you to modify the DTD rather than the parser. Once
> you've hardcoded that error recovery crap there is no easy way to go
> back. Plus your users might be interested in the ability to test their
> pages out against multiple DTDs: "Does this conform to HTML 2.0? 3.2?
> Extended HTML?"
Having said that, you may need your parser to be somewhat error-allowing.
There are certain cases of broken HTML which simply cannot be represented
in a valid DTD (Stewart Brodie's example of broken comments, for
instance).
This could, however, be comfortably accomplished by having a preparser
which attempts to knock invalid HTML into whicever DTD your parser is
written for (or is using at the moment).
Just a thought,
James
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
James Aylett -- Crystal Services (crystal.clare.cam.ac.uk) Ftp and Web
Clare College, Cambridge, CB2 1TL -- sja20@cam.ac.uk
Received on Friday, 9 May 1997 16:10:15 UTC