Re: Comments on HTML WG face to face meetings in France Oct 08

Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Not sure I understand.  The XML spec. only mentions media types in
> passing in its discussion of (natural) language and encoding
> determination.  It defines well-formedness (in general) and validity
> (wrt a DTD).
> An example of what you have in mind would help.

Sure.  Here's an example:

href="data:text/css,*{font-weight:bold}"?><root>text <outer>outer 

Try loading that in your favorite browsers and seeing what happens. 
Note that some of them display some bold text, while others do not. 
This is because the XML specification _does_ say that this document is 
invalid (that is not XML), but _doesn't_ say that this means you can't 
process it and _doesn't_ specify the error handling other than saying 
that processing of things after the error needs to be aborted.

The text/xml part is not important here except insofar as it triggers an 
XML parser in browsers.  The key is that a priori any XML parser can 
take an arbitrary character input stream and does _something_ with it. 
What the something is happens to be underdefined, with a good bit of 
leeway as to what it actually is.

If you think that would be a good state for HTML to be in, I beg to 
disagree.  Underdefined behavior is bad.


Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 15:13:33 UTC