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

Re: XML namespaces on the Web

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:02:13 +0000
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bvdh7dgga.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Hash: SHA1

Henri Sivonen writes:

> On Nov 17, 2009, at 21:23, John Cowan wrote:
>> Technically it doesn't have to simply abort: it can return
>> unprocessed information to the application. 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0009.html

In that message, you wrote:

> 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?

There's at least one crucial difference: in the first case, but not
the second, the "non-XML parser" can know what the application _is_,
and hence have the kind of information necessary for plausible fixup.
All the available fixup technologies I'm aware of, including TagSoup,
PyXUP and HTML5-processors, do fixup based on a knowledge of the
document type involved, without which success is _much_ less likely.

- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 15:02:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:03 UTC