[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 15:03, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 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.
Isn't it what I have said ;-) ???
The only way to cope with tool which are conservative in what they
accept and perhaps liberal in what they discard is to be conservative in
what you send!
In any case, if the industry was going in that direction, we would need
new types of schema languages: the current ones do filter the structure
and content of XML documents without filtering any of the basic XML
features. If XML "sub-profiles" (such as defined by SOAP) were to be
widely used, we would also need schema languages to express the
constraints defined by these profiles!
Eric
--
Freelance consulting and training.
http://dyomedea.com/english/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
