[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "David Brownell" <david-b@pacbell.net>
- To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:22:02 +0100
> Rightly or wrongly, XML processors are licensed to signal an error
... and the fine print for such "error" permits absolutely any
behavior, from ignoring the case to making demons adopt strange
flight patterns. I've taken to calling them "optional errors"
(from the perspective of a parser); such restrictions appear to be
directed to document providers, not parser writers. Just like
all those "for compatibility" constraints.
> if
> they detect a fragment id in a system identifier, ...
>
> We believe that many parsers silently ignore fragment ids, a
> behavior which the XML Rec does not license. The question is:
Double check that fine print. Silently ignoring is absolutely
permitted for any "error" that's not in the category of "validity
error", "well-formedness error" or "fatal error" (the encoding
issue is characterized as a "fatal error" as I recall).
- Dave
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
