- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:53:41 +0900
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
At 10:21 07/05/31, Shane McCarron wrote: >It would be trivial to add a checkbox to the current tree that means "use the XML parser for this". I can provide a patch for that if you like. I didn't want to go there, because I think automatic detection, where it can sensibly be done, is better in this case, and I thought it would be easier to implement, but a explicit checkbox would be fine, too, so please go ahead. Regards, Martin. >olivier Thereaux wrote: >> >> Hi Martin, >> >> On May 30, 2007, at 18:22 , Martin Duerst wrote: >>>> you want to submit patches to make it >>>> better in this regard, without being detrimental to its main job, >>> >>> I can definitely submit a patch that goes into XML mode if an >>> XML declaration is present. I don't consider this as being >>> detrimental to the validator's job, quite to the contrary. >>> If that's not what you mean, please tell me. >> >> I meant that in a general way. I don't think that adding a trigger for XML mode if the xml declaration is present is a bad thing - it does look sane. The discussions about XML detection/triggering, which I was mentioning in my previous message were the following two bugzilla entries: >> XHTML Detection is over-eager [Bug 14] >> XHTML-sent-as-text/html is parsed as XML [Bug 1500] >> >> the latter has been made INVALID by a clarification from the XHTML working group, and I don't think the former is actually valid, but it's raising interesting questions relevant to this discussion. >> [Bug 14] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14 >> [Bug 1500] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1500 #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 01:23:28 UTC