- From: R.W. Crowl <silvermaplesoft@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 03:28:37 -0400
- To: <www-validator@w3.org>
http://home.earthlink.net/~silvermaplesoft/demos/embed.htmlPerhaps this trimmed down page will satisfy both Michael Adams and Frank Ellerman, who wrote> It's an idea for XHTML and XML, but for HTML it's less > obvious what "next element" means after an unknown tag. > And for XHTML, if you have <dig> ... </div>, "next" > could be the end of file, because there is no </dig>.With the correct > </div> instead of the </dig> in this example, there are only ten errors -- > the nine I have labeled as useless and lastly the real error of a > non-extanttag. The </dig> introduces three additional errors. Revalidating > as either 4.01 strict or transitional produces the expected errors about > XHTML issues but otherwise changes nothing.In all scenarios, parsing > appears to resume perfectly adequately with <div id="main">. And while > HTML can get away without closing some tags, the parser seems to have an > adequate idea of what "next element" means.As a former compiler writer > (USAF ADA contract), I am well aware of the difficulties of error > recovery. But I fail to understand how ignoring the attributes of an > element could possibly affect the parse stream. Either way it must find a > closing ">" to the element and then continue parsing. As it reads the > attributes it knows they are invalid precisely because it already knows > the element is invalid and all it's really doing is looking for that > bloody ">" so it can get on with the show. Does this clarify/simplify the > issue?R. W. Crowl
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 07:29:19 UTC