Re: Should we say anything on security?

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Mike Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net> wrote:

> **
> On 09/12/2012 09:49 AM, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Mike Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net> wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2012 09:33 AM, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is the way almost every implementor has interpreted it as
>>> well.  Some, such as libxml will take advantage of the "in a normal way"
>>> clause to at least try to show the user any further fatal errors beyond the
>>> first, to make fix-up a bit less painful, but yeah that hardly counts as
>>> liberal acceptance, and anyway most parsers do stop dead at the first fatal
>>> error.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Not completely - MarkLogic for example, provides "fixup" capabilities
>> in its parser that include undeclared ISO xml entity handling, and I think
>> will even fix well-formedness problems a-la tidy.
>
>
>  Err, that is not an XML parser, then, any more than Tidy is, or
> html5lib, though both can parse XML-like thingies.
>
>   Isn't your argument circular?  "No parser implements fixup, because one
> did, it wouldn't be a parser"
>

Err no.  That's not remotely what I said.  I think I've been pretty clear
in what I've said, which you quoted above.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji