[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: james anderson <James.Anderson@mecomnet.de>
- To: "xml-dev@ic.ac.uk" <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:11:51 +0200
the assertion below re validation appears here time and again. this forum has,
however, yet to bear witness to such a demonstration.
Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
> At 12:27 10/08/98 -0700, Murray Altheim wrote:
> [...]
> >
> >Peter,
> >
>
> >over the working group archives to see that compatibility is not a given.
>
> These are not generally available...
would someone be so kind as to edit the appropriate contributions to the
working group archive to make them available for public consumption.
>
> >In all but trivial DTDs namespaces have been shown to be incompatible with
> >XML 1.0 validation (or at very least more manual effort than would be
> >worth the trouble*). The solution for validating moderately complex
> >structures using qualified names without wholescale rewriting of existing
> >DTDs has not yet been found. It is a given that any such alternative
please give examples of the cases which cannot be validated.
> >validation solution would be inherently incompatible with existing the
> >validation methodology (ie., the SGML-compatible declaration syntax in
> >XML 1.0).
this may be true (wrt. the methodology, not the syntax), but, in the long run,
that does not matter.
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)
|
