W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Comments on HTML WG face to face meetings in France Oct 08

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:51:03 +0200
Cc: "Henry S.Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <3AB7BB41-CC47-4472-B2E8-7FAF75BD7F3D@iki.fi>
To: elharo@metalab.unc.edu

On Dec 31, 2008, at 15:09, Elliotte Harold wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> I believe this is a latter-day interpretation that has sprung up  
>> now that Draconian failure has become unpopular but it is neither  
>> supported by the record of drafting the XML spec nor supported by  
>> the understanding of XML processor developers as evidenced by their  
>> actions.
> I think you misunderstand what's being proposed. No one is  
> suggesting that an XML parser should do something different, and the  
> record is clear on that. However going back to the first edition  
> spec, and the e-mail you cite, it's clear that parsers are allowed  
> to pass *unparsed text* to the application after encountering a  
> fatal error, and that the application is free to do whatever it  
> wants to with that text, including passing it to a non-XML parser.

If you consider black box-distinguishable conformance, what's the  
difference between the XML parser signaling an error and handing the  
rest of the stream to the application which hands it to another non- 
XML parser to continue and a parser signaling the first WF error and  
continuing with the rest of the stream itself?

Henri Sivonen
Received on Friday, 2 January 2009 13:51:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:41 UTC