• From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
• To: "xml-dev@l... List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 21:50:29 -0800

On Dec 12, 2010, at 19:45, Amelia A Lewis wrote:

> XML is, by design, 
> extensible.  To be so, it has to be more draconian, because there are 
> no reasonably imputed semantics for unknown tags (or even for unknown 
> attributes).  Specifying "must ignore" could work for some fields.  It 
> doesn't for all.

I'm not suggesting vocabulary-aware error recovery. I'm suggesting the tokenizer should always transition in a well-defined way on any input character (like the HTML5 tokenizer does) and the tree builder should discard end tag tokens without a matching item on the stack or if there is a matching item on the stack, pop until that item has been popped. (Dealing with unbound prefixes doesn't have such a nice solution, unfortunately.)

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@i...
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML 2 so far
    • From: Michael Sokolov <sokolov@i...>

• References:
  • XML 2 so far
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
  • Re: XML 2 so far
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
  • Re: XML 2 so far
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>