OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] version numbers and infosets

[ 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/    |


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS