Re: Fwd: Re: What route for the XHTML importer?

From: Petr Tomasek <tomasek_at_etf.cuni.cz>
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 09:34:36 CEST

>
> 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

So does it mean two importers? The strict one - XHTML, and the gracious -
HTML?

PT.

-- 
Petr Tomasek, http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek/
Received on Thu Jun 3 09:33:58 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 09:33:58 CEST