[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- To: Sean McGrath <sean@digitome.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:24:48 -0500
Sean McGrath wrote:
> At 12:56 PM 11/10/00 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
> > >What is important is that we all agree on what XML 1.0 is, and given
its
> > >precise specification I think there is precious little room for
argument
> > >regarding this.
>
> SGML was precisely specified. XML is precisely specifed.
>
> Here is a precise statement:
> "XML parsers may or may not whistle Dixie".
>
> A precise statement of an optional behaviour in a data
> notation specification is an ambiguity at the
> data interoperability level.
>
Ok, fine. You've identified a problem (I agree that this is a problem)
Simon says that the solution is to eliminate DTDs (or at least something to
that effect). I say that such a solution does not "fix" XML 1.0 so much as
redefine XML into something else than XML. XML is XML warts and all.
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
|
