----- Forwarded message -----
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 20:03:32 -0400
To: Karl Ove Hufthammer <karl@huftis.org>, abiword-dev@abisource.com
Subject: Re: What route for the XHTML importer?
Message-ID: <20040523000332.GA11734@plam.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <1084509118.11462.78.camel@seviorpc.ph.unimelb.edu.au> <n2m-g.Xns94E99C5E35CE2huftis@ID-99504.news.uni-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <n2m-g.Xns94E99C5E35CE2huftis@ID-99504.news.uni-berlin.de>
From: Patrick Lam <plam@plam.csail.mit.edu>
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
>
> Martin Sevior <msevior@seviorpc.ph.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in
> news:1084509118.11462.78.camel@seviorpc.ph.unimelb.edu.au:
>
> > Should we attempt to import broken HTML files or just barf on
> > them and say "Illegal document"?
>
> Assuming you mean XHTML files, yes, absoluteley.
I don't think anyone caught this point of Karl's.
Invalid HTML probably should be dealt with somehow, because it's
everywhere. But if something claims to be XHTML and fails, we really
should reject it right away: that's what you get to do to bad XHTML
files.
pat
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Thu Jun 3 07:19:18 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 07:19:18 CEST