Re: [office] Rules for handling parsing errors (was: proposal for ODF 1.2: extension of verticalrelationvaluesfor certain anchor types)

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/7/4 David Faure <faure@kde.org>:
> On Friday 04 July 2008, Florian Reuter wrote:
>> > Options:
>> > a) Treat it as if the attribute was not there
>> > b) Try to preserve the value
>> > c) Treat is as if the attribute was there but overwrite the invalid value with a "default" value
>
> I don't see the difference between a and c. In both cases the application will use whatever
> default value it normally uses for this attribute -- which is IMHO the only sensible thing to
> require from an implementation [more precisely not requiring anything when it comes to the
> topic of unhandled attribute values. if they're unhandled, then by definition we can't expect
> them to be handled ;)]. b) is a common utopia solution which never solved any problem
> nor can be implemented fully.

This smells a lot like the start of the browser wars.

Just try and work round the bad html, I'm sure people will want to
read the document.

How much more non-compliant content will you allow? What happens to
conformance checks
which fail yet applications which become monsters working round bad XML?
Application conformance is likely to catch you out with such behaviour

regards






-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk