[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Ann Navarro wrote:
> The issue isn't validation, so much as being able to simply parse the
> documents. MSXML in IE throws a fatal error when encountering PEs that it
> thinks haven't been declared in the appropriate place (due to the
> modularized structure of the DTDs).
>
Exactly.
>
>
> At 03:05 AM 6/29/2002 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> >If what you want is validation the SAX parser in MSXML should be able to
> >validate those without problems.
Do this:
click on either or both of these links (assuming your browser is IE):
(note this conforms to ASTM Standard E2182)
http://www.openhealth.org/ASTM/operative.report.example-dtd.xml
http://www.openhealth.org/ASTM/UTI-guideline.xml
What do you see?
What do you think you _should see_?
I would be happy to see an XML file displayed.
Perhaps this a good example of how W3C recommendations are getting too
complicated. We need to make them simple enough that everyday programmers
are able write some code that conforms to the spec. Unfortunately XML 1.0 is
already out and widely implemented, so although it is (apparently) giving
alot of programmers difficulty, we need to realize that _more_ complicated
specifications are going to give the common folk even more trouble.
Jonathan
|
