- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:41:23 -0500
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, public-html@w3.org
Aryeh Gregor scripsit:
> XML5 doesn't necessarily need to be defined as a successor to XML.
Particularly since it is not a document format spec, which XML is.
> It could be a separate spec, maybe named something entirely different --
> like XML Error Recovery.
That sounds basically right, although I'd rather find a name that doesn't
make it sound like one of the basic set of XML specs like XML Namespaces,
XML ID, XML Base, etc. In addition, it is not XML error recovery, because the
documents it is applied to may or may not be XML.
> A particular spec (like RSS or XHTML) might mandate that UAs have to
> first apply XML Error Recovery to a document, then parse it as XML.
> (Or rather act as though they did this. Of course they'd probably do
> it in one pass in practice.)
That also sounds correct, or at least plausible.
> Recovery spec doesn't belong in HTML5, because it's more general (e.g.,
> applying to RSS as well).
> Does this sound good to you? So no one would say a malformed document
> is XML, but there would be an algorithm to make it into XML.
Seems about right.
--
Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? cowan@ccil.org
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused.
--George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 21:42:05 UTC