[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- To: rbourret@dvs1.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de (Ron Bourret), xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:59:56 +0100 (BST)
> Who is correct? Does "for compatibility" mean the parser is not required to
> support this if it is not interested in SGML compatibility?
The spec says:
for compatibility
A feature of XML included solely to ensure that XML remains
compatible with SGML.
"For compatibility" is just an explanation of the requirement. You'll
notice that all the "for compatibility" comments are associated with
"must" or similar wording. So a conforming processor must indicate an
error if it encounters -- in a comment.
Contrast this with "for interoperability", which does not impose any
requirement. This term is used in conjunction with "should" or "may"
rather than "must", though I notice that in Section 3.1 it is used
with "must", which seems like an error in the standard to me.
-- Richard
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
