- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:11:16 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > I see. If there's going to have to be a special XML incompatibility case > for FF the second one for VT comes for free. > > I'm addressing this issue in my tokenizer implementation by allowing the > user of the library to opt to make the tokenizer non-conforming but XML > 1.0-compatible either by treating FF and VT as fatal errors or by > mapping them to U+0020. As far as I can tell, in this case even the > fatal error treatment is non-conforming, because FF and VT haven't been > defined as parse errors. Well, nothing stops you from having extra restrictions, especially if they're optional. Seems like quite a reasonable feature to offer, to me. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 21:11:16 UTC