- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:12:11 -0800
- To: elharo@metalab.unc.edu
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Nov 17, 2008, at 7:29 PM, Elliotte Harold wrote: > > Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> It's just a PI, then something that starts out looking like XML but >> has a mismatched close tag. The XML specification doesn't preclude >> construction of a DOM out of this text, and some XML consumers do >> just that. Others treat the mismatched close tag as a fatal error >> and do not produce a DOM. The inconsistency is a problem. > > Actually there's a lot more inconsistency than that. The XML > specification doesn't require anything in particular, even if the > close tag were present. The assumption that DOM is what you want or > will get is a big leap. > > I would say the XML specification does require the error to be > reported to the user, though perhaps a partial syntax tree of some > kind could be constructed from this. But again, exactly how this is > handled is up to the consuming application, not the document producer. It sounds like, based on your statements, there would be no specification or set of specifications that define how Boris's document should be processed, even if it were syntactically correct XML. We certainly want to avoid HTML being underspecified in this way. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 05:12:55 UTC