- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:58:20 -0400
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- CC: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "public-html-xml@w3.org" <public-html-xml@w3.org>
On 8/16/2011 6:45 PM, John Cowan wrote: > What would be the benefit of lenient XML parsing in the XHTML context? > You might just as well use the HTML syntax. I >think< what it allows you to do is to start migrating toward use of an XML-stack and perhaps use of some new media type (maybe application/xhtml+xml5?). First of all, you are more likely to be able to do a mechanical mapping of your old broken HTML, perhaps just be serving it as is under the new media type. You get the debugging "benefits" of not having your entire page fail to render just due to mismatched quotes on one attribute (and yes, there's a debugging cost to more lenient error checking). Finally, if people choose to go that route, you have a defined mapping that allows all of this somewhat broken data to be managed by existing XML tools. For example, you might have an XML-aware database. Today, you can use it to manage XHTML, but not tag soup. Assuming you are aware of the risks, you can now move to a content management system where all your HTML is run on such an XML database. Of course, where the input is not well formed, some of the mappings may not what you expect, and there will be questions when re-serializing of whether you expect back the tag soup or the fixed up XML. Still, there is some value there I think, especially as a migration path toward unifying the stacks. Noah
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 14:58:52 UTC