- From: Arnoud <galactus@htmlhelp.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 10:07:26 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
In article <199707302141.PAA00460@underworld.bigpic.com>, "Neil St.Laurent" <neil@bigpic.com> wrote: > In the time of 30 Jul 97:22:09, www-html@w3.org pronounced: > > Section 4.2.1 of RFC 1866 (HTML 2.0 spec) recommends that start- > > and end-tags for unknown elements should be "mapped to nothing" > > (standardese for "ignored") during tokenization.. > > I'm wondering how this is even recommended since this would violate > SGML. There is no recovery technique that would actually allow me to > tokenize an invalid tag. Well, you need to have *some* way to handle extensions and future HTML elements. It is unfortunately not realistic to ask that all authors write documents that completely conform to a specific standard, or that browsers ask for specific versions and that servers filter out the newer elements on the fly. Perhaps I'm being too simple here, but if I'm tokenizing a document with an SGML parser, and I encounter the element FOOBAR that I've never heard of, can't the code that interfaces with the parser simply ignore the parser's error message and pretend it never saw that element? The parser is happy because it reported its error, and the handler ignores it, so everything is ok, right? -- E-mail: galactus@htmlhelp.com .................... PGP Key: 512/63B0E665 Maintainer of WDG's HTML reference: <http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/>
Received on Thursday, 31 July 1997 04:38:29 UTC