- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:17:48 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:18:14 +0200, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > Henry thought it was verbose but ok. Liam suggests that the sentence > > [[ > A document is still well-formed, even if it is not in a normalized form. > ]] > > should be changed to. > > [[ > A document may still be well-formed even if it is not in a normalized > form. > ]] > > With this proposed change, let's put this in countdown. Is this intended to be an RFC2119 "MAY"? That doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe "might" is a better word here. >> HTML request for clearer XML serialization >> ------------------------------------------ >> Henry raised the issue that HTML folks think the XML >> spec is broken because it doesn't define error recovery >> and doesn't discuss serialization. >> >> ACTION to Henry: Send email to the XML Core WG list >> outlining the suggestion to define a serialization spec >> including the rationale. > > Pending. I think the issue here is that the XML spec doesn't define how to convert a stream of bytes into a parsed tree (in terms of some tree model -- HTML5 uses the DOM as the model but this does not restrict implementations to use DOM). The XML spec just states what is the allowed syntax, and the mapping to a tree model is implied. I also think it's an issue here that the XML spec doesn't say what an XML processor should do if it does not abort parsing upon a syntax error. The HTML5 spec says how to do this for HTML (and allows the UA to abort upon a syntax error). See http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#parsing -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:18:31 UTC