[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bob Foster writes:
> I apologize for that. Seriously, XercesJ is a very widely used parser
> and the example wasn't in any way an obscure corner case. I hate to
> pick on you while you're trying to help out a user, but this doesn't
> reinforce the notion that conformance issues are largely behind us.
I think the point at issue actually _is_ a pretty obscure corner
case. Most people assume dangling references are always an error --
when I explain the DTD parallel they are usually surprised.
I agree it either serves no particular purpose (most applications) or
is downright irritating (a few applications, e.g. data-binding).
_But_ in the particular context of the original request,
i.e. incremental schema development, it _is_ useful. And it's not
much of an interop issue, because once you're _done_ development,
there ought not to be any dangling refs.
Opinions on keeping or removing this feature for W3C XML Schema 1.1
would be welcome.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
