Lists Home |
Date 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.
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: email@example.com
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]