- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:00:57 +0000
- CC: "public-xml-er@w3.org" <public-xml-er@w3.org>
On 03/03/2012 03:04, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > ... > Therefore, if we can show in the XML-ER specification what the > equivalent well formed XML text is that corresponds to (the fixup of) > each non-wellformed input, > ... > This seems to me conceptually simpler and also more robust that > picking a favorite among DOM, Infoset and XML DM. The XML > Recommendation doesn't directly deal in any of these. But it also implies that (as in the suggestion at the start of this thread) that we need to change from the current draft proposal and ensure that the element/attribute names match those in (some version of) the XML or XML Namespace REC. I think if we can decide that there is a requirement that the output from xml-er is (or corresonds to) well formed xml, then decisions about whether we express that using a data model or as a literal xml document or both, will be a lot easier. David
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 11:01:21 UTC