- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:29:32 +0100
- To: "public-xml-er@w3.org Community Group" <public-xml-er@w3.org>, "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:34:35 +0100, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > _If_ we are going to differ from HTML5 at this point I think I would go > further. We have a hard requirement I think that any tree have a > serialisation as namespace well formed XML. Is that really a hard requirement? As I understand it EXI goes beyond that, the DOM certainly goes beyond that, HTML goes beyond that (and provides coercion rules to get back to well-formed XML), and there's probably other examples. I think the approach HTML has taken here is better. E.g. earlier we discussed the Char production and that XML does not allow U+0008 for instance. Consensus seemed to be that we did not want to replace that with U+FFFD but instead keep it in. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 11:29:56 UTC