- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:01:35 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> ... >> I've been trying to figure out where exactly the disagreement between >> us lies, but I think we can all agree on the following: >> >> 1. There are applications that have the need and/or desire to implement >> non-draconian error recovery for documents created with the >> intention of being XML, but for whatever reason are not well-formed. >> >> 2. In order to achieve interoperability among such applications, it is >> necessary to have a specification that clearly defines how to parse >> documents intended to be XML and recover from any fatal errors. >> ... > > For the record, I do not support 1), thus also not 2). > > BR, Julian Clarifying: I disagree with "...we can all agree on ... they have a need to implement non-draconian...". In IRC, RSS was pointed out as an example; as far as I can tell, that's the only case where content reliably is broken (is it still?), but given the history of the various RSS dialects, I really have trouble including those into the family of XML vocabularies :-) BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 15:02:18 UTC