- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:37:11 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Robin Berjon scripsit: > On Sep 26, 2011, at 17:19 , Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > I do not feel too strongly, and please publish if this is all > > that is holding the document back, but I do think a comment > > I made earlier still stands. The comparison between how HTML > > instructs an agent to "recover from markup errors" whereas XML > > is unforgiving is skewed. I think the reality is more that HTML > > creates a tree out of any given input and XML defines a number > > of conditions that will not result in a tree. I think this is > > important because of the apparent perception that an HTML parser > > is somehow vastly more complex than its XML counterpart. See e.g. > > https://plus.google.com/103429767916333774260/posts/R6dPzhbc94R for > > an example of that. > > Likewise, I do not wish to block publication, but I do support Anne's > comment. I think that it can easily be addressed. I agree as well; adopting Anne's language seems appropriate to me. > In §2 of the conclusion, I don't recall this group reaching consensus > that we thought a WG should be chartered to work on XML5 if the XML > community is interested. I'm not at all against the idea, but I think > that pointing in the direction of a WG overstates it. It might make > more sense to start with a community group, or an IG. I don't feel > overly strongly about this though. I strongly agree here. The HTML5 rules work because they reflect what parsers actually do. We have no experience with parsing ill-formed XML, and no way to say what the correct rules would be. Talk of a WG is wildly premature. I would prefer something very vague about "further investigation". -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org All "isms" should be "wasms". --Abbie
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 16:37:36 UTC