- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 01:22:37 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > So, let's look at this step by step. Thank you. I agree with your conclusions (namely, that it is undefined). That was my point; that none of the specifications in the current stack actually define this case (Noah, I believe, implied that this _was_ defined somewhere). IMHO, if we want interoperability, we have to define cases like this (especially considering that the majority of content is invalid, so punting on handling of invalid content leaves out most of the content). This is why HTML5 is so detailed. Incidentally, do you know if the current specs define how a user agent is to handle the following bytes if they are received by the client _before_ the client knows if there are any more bytes? <?xml-stylesheet href="data:text/css,*{font-weight:bold}"?> <root>text <outer>outer <inner>inner</outer> I haven't been able to find where the XML spec defines how to process such a document -- it's not strictly an "XML document" since it isn't well-formed, but it might become well-formed if the next few bytes are "</root>", or it might become definitely not well-formed if, say, there are no more bytes. Surely the processing of the earlier part of the document doesn't change based on later parts of the document. Indeed in many applications, it couldn't change. This kind of detail is something that we really need from specifications for the Web. This is the motivation behind a lot of the nitty gritty of the HTML5 spec. > So it appears to me that if you (or Boris) have a grievance, it is with > the CSS and/or the XML Stylesheet specs, not the XML spec. Wouldn't it make more sense for the XML spec to define this once instead of having this defined in CSS, DOM, XHR, SVG, MathML, and every other spec that uses XML and is to be implemented in a user agent that needs interoperability even with the case of non-XML documents labeled as XML? My point isn't that we should or should not change XML; I'm just trying to explain why HTML5 is as detailed as it is. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2008 01:23:16 UTC