[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 1:26 PM +0100 7/23/02, Richard Tobin wrote:
>But as I said, I've been persuaded that we shouldn't require 1.0
>parsers to reject documents labelled other than 1.0. What I would
>really appreciate is some feedback on the possibility of changing the
>terminology so that such documents are "not 1.0 well-formed, but
>acceptable by 1.0 parsers" rather than "1.0 well-formed, but
>rejectable by 1.0 parsers".
>
This just makes the existing mess of different conformance levels to
XML worse. Currently there are three levels of conformance:
1. Well-formed
2. Well-formed with no optional errors (like ambiguous content models
or version="1.1")
3. Valid
You want to add a fourth level, not well-formed but OK. This
significantly complexifies the XML story. It makes to impossible to
say a parser must reject all malformed documents. It adds still more
weasel words we have to use when trying to teach this stuff
accurately. I think this is a very bad idea. Leave the existing spec
alone: no erratum, no change. XML 1.0 is defined by the XML 1.0 spec
as originally published. Make any changes in future versions if you
really must, but don't touch XML 1.0.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
