> (If the outcome here is to do XML5, we should make sure the spec is > polished enough at the WHATWG in order not to a unilateral thing in > relative secret.)
What does it mean to be polished enough at the WHATWG? Also how far reaching should spec be? Include Namespaces? On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@hsivonen.fi> wrote: > Figured out the email address of the XML5 editor / xml5ever developer, > so adding to CC. > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@hsivonen.fi> > wrote: > > In reference to: https://twitter.com/nnethercote/status/ > 866792097101238272 > > > > Is the rewrite meant to replace expat only or also some of our old > > code on both above and below expat? > > > > Back in 2011, I wrote a plan for rewriting the code around expat > > without rewriting expat itself: > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/XML_Rewrite > > I've had higher-priority stuff to do ever since... > > > > (The above plan talks about pushing UTF-16 to the XML parser and > > having deep C++ namespaces. Any project starting this year should make > > the new parser use UTF-8 internally for cache-friendliness and use > > less deep C++ namespaces.) > > > > Also, I think the decision of which XML version to support should be a > > deliberate decision and not an accident. I think the reasonable > > choices are XML 1.0 4th edition (not rocking the boat) and reviving > > XML5 (original discussion: https://annevankesteren.nl/2007/10/xml5 , > > latest draft: https://ygg01.github.io/xml5_draft/). XML 1.1 is dead. > > XML 1.0 5th edition tried to have the XML 1.0 cake and eat the XML 1.1 > > cake too and expanded the set of documents that parser doesn't reject. > > Any of the newly well-forming documents would be incompatible with 4th > > ed. and earlier parsers, which would be a break from universal XML > > interop. I think it doesn't make sense to relax XML only a bit. If XML > > is to be relaxed (breaking interop in the sense of starting to accept > > docs that old browsers would show the Yellow Screen of Death on), we > > should go all the way (i.e. XML5). > > > > Notably, it looks like Servo already has an XML5 parser written in Rust: > > https://github.com/servo/html5ever/tree/master/xml5ever > > > > The tweets weren't clear about whether xml5ever had been considered, > > but https://twitter.com/eroc/status/866808814959378434 looks like it's > > talking about writing a new one. > > > > It seems like integrating xml5ever (as opposed to another XML parser > > written in Rust) into Gecko would give some insight into how big a > > deal it would be to replace Gecko's HTML parser with html5ever > > (although due to document.write(), HTML is always a bigger deal > > integration-wise than XML). > > > > (If the outcome here is to do XML5, we should make sure the spec is > > polished enough at the WHATWG in order not to a unilateral thing in > > relative secret.) > > > > -- > > Henri Sivonen > > hsivo...@hsivonen.fi > > https://hsivonen.fi/ > > > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivo...@hsivonen.fi > https://hsivonen.fi/ > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
