Re: Parsing methods

> >IE: should the parser see
> >	<hello%^ myname=foo>
> >as a TAG that was messed up........
> >	OR
> >as plain text?
> >
> >i say as a messed up tag.....
> And you'd be right.
> If you want to be sure, check with a validating SGML parser.

As much as I would like to see producers use validation, and
as useful as general-purpose SGML is to unambiguous communication
of structured information, I must express a fundamental
disagreement with Dan and some other SGML-heads on how to handle
"invalid" SGML.

I think that  human-written text-based format like SGML _should
not have erors_, period.  I.e., the language should be a way
to interpret whatever the hell the writer throws at you.  If it
is clear and unambiguous HTML, great--interpret it that way and
go on.  If not, I believe a reader should try to be flexible,
and in most cases, just print questionable markup as is.  It is
far more useful for a reader to see something like &emdas; on
his screen when the author meant &emdash; than to see some
meaningless error.  And for a parser to throw up its hands and
refuse to parse <.. width=50%> rather than have some rules for
dealing with markup like this.

If that means two separate sets of rules for readers and writers,
then sobeit.

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 1996 18:14:09 UTC