[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
vdv@dyomedea.com (Eric van der Vlist) writes:
> I had always
>understood Common XML as a set of conservative rules to be used for
>what you send if you want to avoid any interoperability trouble.
>
>Using it the other way round to be conservative in what you accept
>would on the contrary bring you a lot of troubles would be a disaster
>IMO !
The "troubles" are already built into the XML 1.0 specification, To some
extent, I've seen Common XML as a reponse to the conservatism that XML
1.0 _allowed_ for non-validating parsers as regards skipping external
DTD subsets and entities. Much of my motivation in writing Common XML
was to show readers how to avoid the landmines produced by tools being
conservative in what they accept and perhaps liberal in what they
discard.
For those new to the conversation, Common XML is described at:
http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt
It seems to be a set of conclusions which developers reach regularly.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
