- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:14:56 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 16 Feb 2009, at 21:14, Julian Reschke wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> ... >> I'm not clear why one category of errors (well formedness ones) are >> so much worse than other levels (e.g., validity ones). They are all >> errors. > > ... > > ...on different levels... Yeees. But the levels are different by convention, not intrisincally. > > ... >> One nice thing about XML is separating these classes of errors so >> that even if the document is not valid wrt the relevant schema, you >> can still work with it (transform it, etc.)... > > Indeed! > >> ...What's so much worse about well formedness errors? >> ... > > By definition, that's an error that prevents the XML processor from > doing it's job, turning a byte sequence into a sequence of elements, > attributes, text data, etc. Julian, you seem to conflate issues about what *is* the design with a discussion about the design space. If an error only prevents an XML processor from doing its job by *definition*, then there is room to evaluate whether the definition hit the right spot. Which is what I've (and I presume XML5 advocates) are advocating. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 22:15:32 UTC