- From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 19:50:02 -0500
- To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > > On the other hand, the quality of error recovery exhibited by the SGML > software I've used when confronted with the equivalents of WF errors is > -- how can i say this delicately? -- not the world's most persuasive > argument for SGML or for error recovery. It always surprises me when > any error message after the first is even coherent. If your mileage > varies, then good luck to you. On the other hand, when a human is on the receiving end and knows SGML, it is an easy class of errors to debug. Just like C, after the first bug or so, most of it goes away and it comes down to a simple class of syntax anomalies usually due to sloppy input in the ASCII editor. Most SGML editors I've used when a competent DTD designer created the schema are remarkably good at keeping the markup at the level of precision required by the next handling application. Error handling requirements are consumer-based. len
Received on Friday, 9 May 1997 20:50:17 UTC