Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 20:24 -0800, Henri Sivonen wrote: > To the extent there are people who like Namespaces but who consider > Draconian behavior a disadvantage for XML, making XML processing > non-Draconian would give them Namespaces together non-Draconian > behavior without putting xmlns into HTML. That is, I think Namespaces > are bad and Draconian error handling is bad, so to make a combination > that has Namespaces but not Draconian error handling, I think it makes > more sense to remove one bad thing (Draconian error handling) from XML > than to add a bad thing (xmlns syntax) to HTML. Well, this is why I wrote my "unobtrusive namespaces" proposal, to reduce the syntactic objections. It doesn't address any complaints about browser APIs and namespaces though. The XML specification forbids a parser from saying something was XML if it wasn't. But it doesn't require a "yellow screen of death" and never has. Error correction is perfectly OK as long as the API provides a way for the application to determine that the input was not well-formed XML. So, you don't need to call it a new version of XML, and you don't need a new version of XML. E.g. have a required callback for well-formedness errors, that can return TRY_TO_FIX or GIVE_UP_NOW, and all is well. (One could argue it's a bug in APache, IIS, etc. to label something as XML if it's not well-formed; certainly it's in violation of the HTTP spec, but the Web has always been a bit loose with such things :-) ) For the special case of RSS, I think it'd be better to say that RSS is not in fact regular XML ,and needs an RSS parser (sadly). Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
