[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
david@megginson.com scripsit:
> This is a point where the original XML WG (I didn't join until after
> the 1.0 REC) deserves praise. Assuming that the Ethiopian XML people
> include an XML declaration, their XML 1.1 documents will at least
> trigger obvious and properly documented failures in 1.0-only
> processors (along the lines of "Fatal: XML version 1.1 not supported")
> rather than intermittent, hard-to-track-down bugs and crashes.
So we hope, at least. Yet the requirement for 1.0 parsers to accept
only things marked "1.0" (or not marked at all) is extremely recent.
Until then, XML 1.0 parsers were free to accept things that began
<?xml version="3.141592653.gibberish"?>.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.
-- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
|
