[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- To: "Richard L. Goerwitz" <richard@goon.stg.brown.edu>, xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 08:53:39 -0700
At 10:30 AM 6/18/99 -0400, Richard L. Goerwitz wrote:
>I'm always wondering why all this "for interoperability" language is
>in the spec. It's hard to know what weight to assign something that's
>neither legal nor illegal - or something that's technically valid, but
>discouraged in some usage contexts that aren't very clearly defined in
>the spec.
When XML was created, there was no XML software, but there was a considerable
array of existing SGML software. If you follow all the for-interoperability
rules, your XML docs should work just fine with pre-1996 SGML software.
That's all. I *think* that's what the spec says:
for interoperability
[Definition:] A non-binding recommendation included to increase the
chances that XML documents can be processed by the existing installed
base of SGML processors which predate the WebSGML Adaptations Annex to
ISO 8879.
-Tim
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)
|
