[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- To: XML Dev <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 16:05:13 -0400
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> > I find also the following 20 kinds of non-fatal errors:
>
> Many of these are violations of the grammar, hence making the document
> not well-formed (because it doesn't match the production "document").
Yeah, it's ugly. The claim that a document is WF if it conforms
to the production "document" appears in clause 2.1 and is repeated
in clause 4.3.2, but is not as such a WFC, and clause 1.2 claims
only that violations of WFCs are said to be errors. So technically a
document like
<foo
though not WF, is not "in error", since neither "error" nor "must"
is anywhere applied to what is wrong with it.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
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)
|
