[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
When I say that Word 6 "is-compatible-with" Word 5,
it often means that any Word 5 document can be read by
Word 6, and that Word 6 can write the in Word 5 format.
That doesn't mean that Word 6 *is* Word 5 when you
say that they are compatible.
ConciseXML is a new syntax. It is *not* the XML 1.0
syntax, however, any XML 1.0 document is a valid
ConciseXML document.
According to the first definition of "compatibility" in
Merriam-Webster:
compatibility: capable of existing together in harmony
I believe ConciseXML fits that definition.
_Plusch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] ConciseXML syntax
> uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
> >My objection to their usage depends heavily on custom within the
XML
> >community. I thought this would go without saying, but I guess
not.
>
> I've always assumed that "compatible with XML" meant "would pass
through
> an XML 1.0 parser without a fatal error". There are lots of ways to
> subset XML and remain compatible on those terms.
>
> Beyond that, I use the more generic term "markup" for material
that's
> still syntactically-structured text.
>
> --
> Simon St.Laurent
> Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
> Errors, errors, all fall down!
> http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
|
