- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 20:12:00 -0400
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>, micro xml <public-microxml@w3.org>
David Carlisle scripsit: > So given that html5 compatibility is another possible motivating > factor of micro-xml and that > > <math><mfrac><img src="a"/><img src="b"/></mfrac> > > parses as both xml and html and presumably parses as micro-xml as well > is it really absurd to ask that the micro-xml parse not only reports > that the file is well formed but that it reports the same tree as > xml not the tree that the html parser reports, which is > > <math><mfrac/></math><IMG src="a"/><IMG src="b"/> Fortunately for us, this document is invalid HTML, and as such not part of the MicroXML use case. -- On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove John Cowan cowan@ccil.org you're not a dog. --Bill de hOra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 00:12:23 UTC