[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The article at
http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/08/19/Draconianism
is a very good defense of the well-formedness rules.
I fought this one, but on the whole, the separation of
the rules for the syntax and the validation rules of the
application language, and the consequent ability to
then specify the Draconian parse provided reliability
where it could be obtained and flexibility where it
was allowable. I think it is a smart design and don't
mind being wrong about that.
From a system level design viewpoint, Postel's observations
don't apply here.
len
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>The creators of XML were wrong. Postel's Law has no exceptions."
>
> Just to be clear, this is Aaron Swartz's argument, not mine. I
> disagree with Aaron, but for reasons that are not yet coherent enough to
> post. I figured his provocation was worth some thought, however.
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1997Apr/ and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1997May/ - but only if
you've got some time to invest.
|
