- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:20:31 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > > If you first specify a requirement on documents (always use ";") and > then specify mandatory error processing related to it (browsers must > recognize entity references without ";"), then you have effectively > defined the error as a feature, though a deprecated one. But you can > proclaim that you have now defined a stricter version of the language. No, if you say something is non-conforming, it's non-conforming. Whether the error handling is defined recovery, reverse-engineered undefined recovery, or a fatal error has no effect on how strict the language is. The language's strictness is up to its conformance criteria. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 07:20:41 UTC