Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jeni Tennison scripsit:
> You're surprisingly right that the XML 1.0 Rec. doesn't say anything
> about whether or not elements and attributes are reported to an
> application. (I actually think that this was because this assumption
> was so fundamental that they didn't think that they needed to spell it
> out; it *does* explicitly say that some things *don't* need to be
> reported to the application, such as comments, which is what makes me
> think the default is "report everything").
Not really: for example, attribute order is not reported by any parser
I know, except possibly Expat, and even there the documentation does
not guarantee it.
I pushed for the Core WG to issue errata saying that the existence
of elements and attributes had to be reported (already true for
attribute values, PIs, and a few other things), but the consensus was
that to do such a thing right would involve incorporating the Infoset,
and that was too big a job for an erratum.
> Of course I'm not saying that a JITT processor, or any other
> processor, can't treat a document that happens to use XML markup in
> some other way; it's just that if it *does*, it's not an XML
And besides, LMNL is a way cooler acronym than JITT.
John Cowan firstname.lastname@example.org www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration
is exchanged. So it was at King's Bench in common law England; so it was
under the common law in the American colonies; so it was through more than
two centuries of jurisprudence in this country; and so it is today.
--_Specht v. Netscape_