- From: David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:07:28 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 4:06 PM -0600 4/28/97, Dave Hollander wrote: >Q2a: Is it important to have interoperability defined for documents > that have errors? No. It is important to have a universal definition of what is an error. I think it's also important, as Michael and others have noted, that there is a mandatory notification of syntactically malformed documents. I think even a little red flag in the browser window would suffice to make authors check -- because they know that it looks like they are careless if the flag shows up... >Q2b: If so, how do we prevent implementation/market-share wars > over emulating error behavior such that XML will not effectively > become rewritten by the leading implementations? 1. Reprogram the brains of the entire industry. 2. make sure the vendors must explain that they are interpreting _erroneous_ documents. It's a feature, but a very different feature from the current situation in HTML -- where the definition is essentially irrelevant for practical work. >A2a: the argument seems to be, don't worry. Since most if not all XML > documents will be machine generated they will all be well formed. > I don't buy it! Programmers are human to and make as many errors > as prose authors. Sure, and the programmers, like the authors, will have to fix their incorrect output, to remove error displays from browsers and other processors. -- David _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 1997 00:06:11 UTC