[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Cedric ROUVRAIS <crouvrais@octo.fr>
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:48:28 +0200
humm ... had you replied:
"Well-formed XML documents must contain matching start and end tags, and
tags cannot overlap.
For example, the following example is well-formed:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<person>
<name>Cedric ROUVRAIS</name>
<occupation>Software Architect Consultant/Engineer</occupation>
</person>
Whereas, this example is not well-formed (<name> and <occupation> tags
overlap, and there is no <person> end tag):
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<person>
<name>Cedric ROUVRAIS
<occupation>Software Architect Consultant/Engineer
</name>
</occupation>
Valid XML documents must conform to a Document Type Definition (DTD). The
following example is a valid XML document that conforms to person.dtd:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE PERSON SYSTEM "person.dtd">
<person>
<name>Cedric ROUVRAIS</name>
<occupation>Software Architect Consultant/Engineer</occupation>
</person>
All valid XML documents are well-formed; however, a well-formed document is
not valid unless it conforms to a DTD."
but you didn't and you helped me make my point reach it's goal.
in general i would think 'tis better to be constructive rather than
destructive. your reply
"You might want to check out the definitions for "well-formed" and "valid"
(which is the thing you called "well-formed")."
was destructive in the sense i didn't learn anything: i was stupid before
reading your mail, and i'm still stupid afterwards.
whereas Matt response was nice as i wasn't aware of this openoffice thing
(thanks matt).
my point is let's move forwards and learn from our past mistakes and not
flamme each other, or am i coming from another world ? (i'm not saying you
guys where flamming each other but your discussion was leading us to
nowhere)
regards,
cedric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2000 12:34
> To: Cedric ROUVRAIS; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: Word output as XML? (was RE: XML in .NET - more than just
> SOAP?)
[taken out]
|
