Re: [VE][76] This message is preceded by nine useless messages

Somehow my mailer garbled my message. Here is what it should have looked
Perhaps 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-extant tag. 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

R. W. Crowl 

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 08:05:45 UTC