- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:21:05 +1000
- To: <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
> I agree that if XML were to be used in the current single-purpse way that > HTML is, i.e. exclusively for browsing, then error recovery would be > desirable. But I do not, and so remain convinced that we have to > make a strong statement in order to achieve a violent break with this > one particularly pernicious cultural characteristic of the Web. On further reflection, I would support lexical errors causing sudden death *if* the XML-link language were smart enough to be able to request the rest of a document after a lexical error. That would allow some resynching. Is it? Consider the following fragment: <layer> <p id="p1" lang="en"> A < B <!--* an error *--> </p> <p id="p2" lang="th"> A < B </p> </layer> Is XML-link currently defined in such a way that if we died at the error in "p1", we could still then request "p2" et seq.? Maybe this just bifurcates the whole lexical thing into XML being strict for applications & data but robust for navigation & linking. Rick Jelliffe
Received on Monday, 28 April 1997 06:24:15 UTC