Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, 3 February 2003 11:24 AM
> To: Michael Leditschke; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Usefulness of well-formedness was RE: [xml-dev]
> SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
> We must have read different links. Not only do I not see where Rick says anything negative about the redundancy in XML's
> tag structure but his mail is self explanatory and references other mails in that thread. As for the problem with the
> current definition of well-formedness this seems explained by the quote
> "The current situation where you don't know what infoset a parser will produce
> when you give it a document means that at the heart of XML is a flaw which
> should be removed sooner rather than later. "
My use of tag structure was only meant to be illustrative of
why talk of "deprecating" well-formedness was of concern to me, not as
a slur against Rick.
Rick uses the term "well-formed" as one of his suggested kinds of
documents, a kind he then suggests should be deprecated. I took
this to mean well-formed per XML 1.0, which includes
the constraints on tag structure. Thus if you want to deprecate
"well-formed", to my mind, that must have some implications for
other constraints like tag structure as well.
Having read the entire thread, Rick is using the term in more than
one sense, as Elliott later points out
In trying to understand Simon's message, I confess to only reading the
email quoted not the entire thread, before posting my original question.
For me, the email was not self explanatory, but I'll try to be more diligent
before posting in the future.