- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:51:03 +0200
- To: elharo@metalab.unc.edu
- 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
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 hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 2 January 2009 13:51:51 UTC