- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:09:06 -0800
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "Henry S.Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote: > I believe this is a latter-day interpretation that has sprung up now > that Draconian failure has become unpopular but it is neither supported > by the record of drafting the XML spec nor supported by the > understanding of XML processor developers as evidenced by their actions. I think you misunderstand what's being proposed. No one is suggesting that an XML parser should do something different, and the record is clear on that. However going back to the first edition spec, and the e-mail you cite, it's clear that parsers are allowed to pass *unparsed text* to the application after encountering a fatal error, and that the application is free to do whatever it wants to with that text, including passing it to a non-XML parser. In practice, that just hasn't been a very useful or necessary feature. Most applications find it easier to just work require well-formed XML and call it a day. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu Refactoring HTML Just Published! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0321503635/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 13:09:44 UTC