[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Sean McGrath wrote:
> [Tim Bray]
> >It's OK to define a custom language for your own purposes, but it's
> not OK at all to use the term "XML" in
> >describing it;
>
> Interesting.
>
> Basically every XML editor/ETL/database loader I have ever come across
> is non-conformant to
> the XML 1.0 specification in some way or other.
>
> The world is full of "xml parsers" that only support bits of XML 1.0.
Etc... there's a word for these situations: "bugs". Bugs are a fact of
life and we fix them and deal with them. When someone writes a
specification for a potentially-very-important software library and
writes the bug into the definition, that's a different level of
seriousness. -Tim
|
