- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:56:22 +0000
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: public-xml-er@w3.org
On 29/02/2012 18:35, Mark Baker wrote: > Likewise, if I send "<hello>there</goodbye>" as application/xml, I'm > evoking the XML 1.0 specification via RFC 3023 to indicate how my > message should be interpreted. As we all know, that's not well-formed > XML and so it's interpretation is "null". No, if you send non well formed XML to an XML processor, it has to flag an error, but the application is free to do anything it likes after the error is flagged. If parsing with xml-er and parsing with xml produce the same result on well formed xml, then it seems perfectly OK to me to parse with xml-er instead asn as I aid initially externally it is the same as parsing with xml and just parsing with xml-er on failure. Are you really saying that an existing xml editor that allows you to edit and fix broken xml is non conformant in showing the file? If at the end we decide it would be helpful to add a pointer to xml-er in the xml media type RFC we could do that but that's not really a concern at this stage. David
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 18:56:46 UTC