- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:11:16 +0200
- To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Cc: xml-editor@w3.org, W3c I18n Group <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, w3c-xml-plenary@w3.org
On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 10:48:24 AM, Rick wrote: RJ> Request for Erratum to XML 1.0 and 1.1 Specs RJ> ---------------------------------------------- RJ> Rick Jelliffe, ricko@topologi.com, 2003-10-21 RJ> I request the XML Working Group please consider the following erratum RJ> to XML 1.0 which should also apply to XML 1.1. I understand what your intent is ans why you suggest this at this time, but: RJ> "A non-validating processor may, at user option, imply definitions for RJ> all the character entities defined by HTML 4[1]. A document or entity RJ> for which definitions are implied is not well-formed. The processor must RJ> report a non-fatal error. NOTE: The document is 'not well-formed but RJ> processed'. Reliance on this feature by specifications is deprecated; RJ> this option may be withdrawn at some RJ> future time should it prove dangerous." Or simply not added in the first place. In my view, adding another XML conformance level below well formed is not an erratum. Its a major change to the language. Encouraging XHTML (and MathML) processors to deal with non well formed documents strikes me as highly dangerous and damaging; it could kill off the already precarious position of client-side XML and relegate XML to back-end processing only while perpetuating the 'non wellformed but looks a bit like XML' mess. Pages purporting to be XHTML are already the second highest type of non wellformed document. Lets not encourage this practice. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 09:11:36 UTC