- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:07:34 +0000
- CC: W3C XML-ER Community Group <public-xml-er@w3.org>
On 22/02/2012 13:51, Jeni Tennison wrote: > I'd suggest that in cases where the input really doesn't look > anything like XML (ie whose first non-whitespace character isn't a<), > an XML-ER parser does whatever it is that HTML does I think that's probably going too far. If you need that, then mostly it works just to give the document to an html parser. (unfortunate breakage around /> syntax but that's an old/lost battle:-( I thought the idea of xml-er was to have a fault tolerant parser but _without_ all the weird tree re-arrangement and special casing that html needs to do. On the other hand, the idea of supplying a default document element if the document doesn't have one is (probably) good and consistent with ensuring the output from xml-er is (or can be serialised as) a well formed xml document, whatever the input document looked like. David
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 00:08:10 UTC