Re: Suggested revised text for HTML/XML report intro

Anne van Kesteren scripsit:

>> 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.

Please explain with clear and convincing examples why the XML5 approach
is superior to Siefke's algorithm.  Or vice versa, I'm not picky.

>> Without such a justification, all we end up doing is complicating the
>> description of XML further: [...].
> 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.

I say the specification will become more complex, and you reply that the
processor may become less complex.  Non sequitur.

John Cowan
                I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 16:32:23 UTC