Re: Suggested revised text for HTML/XML report intro

On 17/08/2011 15:52, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> I'm sympathetic to the rest of your note, but I think this sets the
> bar a bit too low.

er yes, but I didn't want to get into the specifics at this point about
how exactly one assesses whether the document tree produced by a
particular algorithm is "good enough".

same is true already for html(5) parsing. Some might argue that for some
inputs the document tree produced by html5 parser is excessively weird
and unrelated to the input, but actually so long as you know what it
does, and what it does is defined in excruciating detail in the spec, it
turns out that life can go on.

I worry a bit that I find myself (who would still consider himself an
xml aficionado) justifying parsing the following which looks like a well 
formed bit of xml that has an "obvious" document tree





Perhaps I've been hanging out on whatwg irc too long and become
infected, but still, I said it now...


google plus: https:/

The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 

Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 15:32:27 UTC