- From: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:45:38 -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
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:10:16PM -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote: [...] > XML5 doesn't necessarily need to be defined as a successor to XML. It > could be a separate spec, maybe named something entirely different -- > like XML Error Recovery. 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.) An XML Error > 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. I'm with John that it'd be better not to call it XML Error Recovery, but, e.g. "Web Browser and RSS Reader Recovery For Sad And Pathetic Content Vaguely Like XML" :-) but in other respects yes, a separate spec talking about a strategy for building a XML-compatible DOM out of not-quite-XML input would be fine, I think. Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 00:45:51 UTC