- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:23:21 -0500
- To: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>
- CC: public-html@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On 11/19/09 8:22 AM, Liam Quin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:47:15PM +0000, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Now, I'd like to ask from everyone who has argued the position that the >> Application may continue processing the stream after the XML 1.0 Processor >> has signaled a fatal error: >> * Do you believe the above construction black-box-testably constitutes an >> XML 1.0 Processor and (a part of) an Application? (If not, why not?) >> * Do you believe the construction subverts the intent of the XML 1.0 spec? >> (If not, why not?) > > http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/08/16/specs > (to be read as a humorous take, of course). I should not that this does not address the core issue, which is that there seems to be some substantial disagreement on what the XML 1.0 spec actually calls for or should call for (not necessarily the same, of course) in terms of required processing or not-processing. It might be worth for someone to try to answer Henri's questions... -Boris
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 15:24:09 UTC