W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2011

RE: Revised HTML/XML Task Force Report

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:14:45 -0700
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05CB12A225@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
> What would that accomplish that putting an HTML parser at the front of your XML processing pipeline won't achieve far more cheaply and without requiring tinkering with undeployed media types?

If you're going to make a case for choosing one of the options over another based on relative deployment cost ("far more cheaply"), I think you need to provide some analysis of deployment costs.

What is the cost of putting an HTML parser in front of every XML processing pipeline? Have people done this? What has been their experience? Does it really work? 

(If the problem is lscripting expecting a different DOM, adding an HTML parser at the "front end" doesn't seem to help.)


What is the cost of deploying a new MIME type instead of application/xhtml+xml? Who pays what cost?

I just don't think you can say "far more cheaply" without additional analysis.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 14:15:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:39 GMT