1. Error handling
My recent contribution to the "HTML and XML" thread
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0040.html) wasn't actually about
errors.
However it does come back to errors at some points. I find Sneddon's 0060 reasonably measured, and asking for some do-able things (Hah: 3023bis raises its head again)
I guess we should forward the concerns about serialisation, particularly
PHP but as a general matter, to the XML Core WG. It's arguably the case that
they should consider producing an Infoset Serialization spec. See Sneddon's 0063.
Noah's
0181 is a good summary of the language spec./behaviour spec.
distinction and why it's right.
Although I think he gets a bit carried away at other points, I like ERH's 0129
1.1. What needs to be taken forward and how?
- Prevalence of XML serializers which produce non-WF output: which is the
right forum/mechanisms: Talk to PHP implementors? [XML Core WG?]
- XML Spec's (lack of) definition of error handling
- Reach consensus about the facts of the matter [HST to prepare]
- Decide what if anything to do [TAG discussion]
- News from the front lines: Opera has joined XML Core WG, sent Simon
Pieters with a draft rewrite of the XML Stylesheet PI REC with considerable
elaboration in the error handling area. . .
- Declarative specifications of error recovery: Tagsoup, PyXUP, . . .
[Outside research activities]
- Language definition vs. consumer behaviour specification: What should
be in a specification? [TAG discussion?]
- Scope of possible actions in this area: Who else is doing or willing do
do some of this? How can we actually get relevant constituencies to move? [TAG metadiscussion]