- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:16:05 +0200
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: >>Can you point at a spec that says that *anywhere*, even for fringe >>circumstances? > > First: > > 2.1 Well-Formed XML Documents > [Definition: A textual object is a well-formed XML document if:] > 1. Taken as a whole, it matches the production labeled document. > 2. It meets all the well-formedness constraints given in this specification. > 3. Each of the parsed entities which is referenced directly or indirectly > within the document is well-formed. > > Taken from: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#sec-well-formed > > Second: > 4.1. Documents must be well-formed > Taken from: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.1 I see nothing about rendering. I also see nothing about not reporting information to the application until an error is met. You're not demonstrating anything. >>Specs could define what it is supposed to look like. Or they could be >>flexible and require that a) no further processing be performed and b) >>the user be informed of the error. > > Right. > > Until we have not such specs any attempt to render partial > content - (non-valid XHTML document) is a non-standard behavior. So how do you explain that the SVG spec describes how content can be rendered as it arrives? > Otherwise it wouldn't be an XML popular by its strictness but something like > "Yet another HTML which looks like XML this time". No, so long as they abort parsing upon WF errors they are 100% XML-conformant. If you want another definition of a conformant parser, talk to the XML Core WG. So far you are just repeating arguments that have been convincingly shown to be wrong by several people. -- Robin Berjon
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:16:27 UTC