- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:54:46 +0200
- To: "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "public-html-xml@w3.org" <public-html-xml@w3.org>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:09:00 +0200, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > The problem is that there is no compelling reason to prefer one approach > to any other. Of course there is. Processing XML requires no schema. Processing XML in a lenient manner should not suddenly require a schema. > Without such a justification, all we end up doing is > complicating the description of XML further: instead of being able to say > "report a fatal error", we must specify in detail exactly what infoset to > produce for violations of each of the 83 productions, 12 well-formedness > constraints, and 8 miscellaneous fatal-error specifications in XML 1.0 > (Fifth Edition). In terms of complexity continuing processing or halting because of an error does not matter much. Because you have to check less character ranges a processor that just continues in face of errors might actually be less complex. The idea that a tokenizer that does not halt in face of errors and produces output per a given data model is more complex is false. (HTML, WebVTT, CSS, event streams, XML5, are all testament to this.) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 15:55:31 UTC