W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Standards mode and Quirks mode (was Re: [CSS21] Test Suite)

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:25:06 +0200
Message-ID: <410657B2.9030301@expway.fr>
To: Brian Sexton <discussion-w3c@ididnotoptin.com>
Cc: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>

Brian Sexton wrote:
>>Robin Berjon wrote:
>>There is a requirement that the document be in error when it is
>>discovered that it is no well-formed.
> On the contrary, if a document that purports to be XML is not well-formed,
> it does not meet the requirements of the XML specification and thus, is in
> error.

"On the contrary"? We could go over the entirety of epistemology from 
the scholastics to quantum physics to try and figure out whether a 
document is in error before it has been observed to do so, but that 
wouldn't likely get us very far. The fact is, an XML processor 
*processes* XML until it finds it not to be well-formed. I don't see how 
it could guess that it's in error before parsing it to that error.

>>Robin Berjon wrote:
>>There is no requirement that that has to be known before
>>rendering can start to work.
> Perhaps not, but if rendering begins before checking for well-formedness
> then well-formedness is not checked before rendering begins.

That is correct.

>  If A happens
> before B then B does not happen before A.

That is correct.

>  This seems like a very simple
> point; I do not understand why you are contesting it unless, as I suspect,
> you simply misunderstood it.  Or perhaps I did.

It is simple to the point that you can immediately reduce it to A != 
non-A, which is a tautology. I don't see how that advances the argument 

The simple fact is:

  * an XML processor processes a document until it is found in error, or
    the document ends, whichever comes first;
  * since rendering is part of the processing being performed on the XML
    document, there is nothing keeping it from occuring while the
    document is not discovered to be in error;
  * therefore, there is not a single argument against incremental
    rendering of XML documents. In fact, it is even part of SVG:


What happens when you document is found to be in error (wiping out the 
entire display, or leaving it there but stopping everything else and 
never getting a load event) is up to the given specification to define.

> No, but making remarks like that, you are being unnecessarily and
> unentertainingly rude--exhibiting precisely the kind of behavior that makes
> public discussion lists and forums more annoying and less productive than
> they should be.  Let's keep this list productive, shall we?

There are many ways of being rude; I was merely responding to your 
assumption that you know and understand everything, and that tautologies 
need be explained to others.

Robin Berjon
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:26:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:14 UTC