- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:53:39 +0100
- To: "W3C XML-ER Community Group" <public-xml-er@w3.org>, "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:32:15 +0100, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> I'm coming around to the view expressed by Noah and David (and others)
> that we'd be better off casting this as a new set of parsing rules for
> interpreting some sequences of characters that resemble XML but are
> not well-formed in a way that deterministicly produces a tree.
>
> I think when the process finishes, and we have a tree (if we have a
> tree), it will be possible (for a human) to look back and say, we got
> this tree by correcting these errors in these ways. But I'm not sure
> we should limit ourselves to describing the process in a way that
> guarantees that the XML-ER parser knows this.
It's not really clear to me what this means. I certainly want to consider
well-formed XML too. I don't think we want to end up with two XML
processors in our browser, for instance. Or in other words, the code
should be like this
parseXML(input)
and not
if(!parseXML(input))
parseXMLER(input)
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 17:54:11 UTC