On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > * Ian Hickson wrote: >> No, it doesn't. It doesn't define the syntax at all. It defines how to >> parse the syntax, and what to report as a syntax error, but that >> section has no normative criteria that apply to documents. > > That is quite irrelevant.
I respectively disagree. > The definition of the parsing algorithm along with the > syntax-independent requirements severely limits what these criteria > could be; such criteria could only define that some documents are > non-conforming even though they parse into conforming trees without > generating parse errors; doing anything beyond that would contradict the > rest of the draft. I agree that the requirements could be deduced. But unless they are actually there, they aren't actually there. If you see what I mean. > It is actually possible to construct a document that parses into a > conforming tree without generating parse errors that does not con- form > to the requirements in section 9.1, odd as that may seem. Could you elaborate on this? I don't doubt that there are mistakes, but I am not aware of any. >> Such a document is impossible to construct declaratively with the HTML >> format, it can only be declaratively constructed with the XML syntax. > > My point exactly. What is your point? I'm confused. The syntax section is clear that you can't create such a document. This is, in fact, one very important example of why the syntax section is important -- if an authoring tool tried to generate a document that had a <pre> inside a <p>, it would be non-conforming, but only because of the syntax section (9.1.2.5:2), not because of the parser section -- the parser section wouldn't be able to determine there was an error. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
