- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:31:55 -0600
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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 :-) > +1 RSS is not a poster child for advocating change. Reading the history of RSS is like reading about the sinking of the Titanic, in Twitter. Regardless, I'm trying to catch up with this discussion. Forgive my denseness here, but can someone point out the message in this thread that is directly relevant to a possible change in the HTML5 specification? Anne mentioned something about being tasked at TPAC for providing a solution for making namespaces "usable on the web". That seems to exceed this group's charter a bit. Especially when we get into discussions about XML5. As for the non-draconian bits...I've looked through the XML specifications, but perhaps not as thoroughly as I could. Where is there mention that error handling with XML must be draconian in nature? I'm surprised at this, as normally W3C specifications are rather dry, and the word "draconian" has so much flare to it. Shelley > BR, Julian > > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 15:32:36 UTC