[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- To: XML Dev <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:33:05 -0500
Mark Birbeck wrote:
[example snipped]
> No-one so far in the discussion has argued that this is good XML -
I so argue. It is well-formed, though not valid, XML. Validity
inherently can't be checked until you've processed everything.
It might be interesting to define the subset of validity that can
be checked on the fly, though.
My first cut at it says that all VCs except the following can be
checked given the full left context (in stream terms, all that
has come before):
[32] Standalone Document Declaration
[56] IDREF
[56] Entity Name (detectable at end of DTD)
[58] Notation Attributes (detectable at end of DTD)
Have I overlooked anything?
> My contribution to the discussion - which I *did* give much thought -
> was to try and argue that it is not very good programming practice
> anyway, to open a stream for 8 hours.
I agree with this.
--
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)
|
