W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Re: HTML and XML

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:14:56 +0000
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <5EF86C7F-84D7-4300-8337-EEC08C0446FA@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 16 Feb 2009, at 21:14, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> ...
>> I'm not clear why one category of errors (well formedness ones) are  
>> so much worse than other levels (e.g., validity ones). They are all  
>> errors.
> > ...
> ...on different levels...

Yeees. But the levels are different by convention, not intrisincally.

> > ...
>> One nice thing about XML is separating these classes of errors so  
>> that even if the document is not valid wrt the relevant schema, you  
>> can still work with it (transform it, etc.)...
> Indeed!
>> ...What's so much worse about well formedness errors?
>> ...
> By definition, that's an error that prevents the XML processor from  
> doing it's job, turning a byte sequence into a sequence of elements,  
> attributes, text data, etc.

Julian, you seem to conflate issues about what *is* the design with a  
discussion about the design space.

If an error only prevents an XML processor from doing its job by  
*definition*, then there is room to evaluate whether the definition  
hit the right spot. Which is what I've (and I presume XML5 advocates)  
are advocating.

Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 22:15:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:00 UTC