- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:22:51 +0000
- To: public-xml-er@w3.org
On 20/02/2012 23:42, Jeni Tennison wrote: > ... > First, I don't think we should call a parser that does error > recovery an 'XML Parser', because that will just confuse people or > rub them up the wrong way (make them think that we're redefining > XML). Perhaps call it a 'Recovering XML Parser' instead? (Or does > that sound too much like 'Recovering Alcoholic'?) And instead of: > > This specification defines the parsing rules for XML documents, > whether they are syntactically correct or not. > > say something like: > > This specification defines the rules for building a tree from XML > documents and documents that purport to be XML documents but are not > well-formed. I agree that the input shouldn't be described as "XML" but it needn't purport to be XML either. If I choose to parse "<foo>a</bar>" with this parser I don't need to (or get the document to ) purport that is XML, I just want an XML-compatible result so I can bash it with XSLT (typically) So something like This specification defines the parsing rules for documents, producing an XML compatible <infoset>. The input need not be well formed XML. (<infoset> here could be <DOM> or whatever other term we use for the output tree, as in your second point below. > ... > Second, I think we need to reach some kind of agreement on what it > is exactly that a Recovering XML Parser creates,... David
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 01:23:15 UTC