Mike Champion wrote:
> It seems to me that Sean raises a more profound issue. If XML has
> brought real interoperability benefits despite widespread
> non-conformance to the spec (whether we call the non-conformance "bugs"
> or "features"), then the argument that the benefits are threatened by
> non-conformant implementations seems highly suspect.
Not neccessarily. I take Tim's point about designing these things in
(bugs, optimizations, features, depending on your perspective). It
makes sense to look at this in terms of cost/benefit. I doubt that
calling something that knowingly doesn't process XML an XML
processor (and never can, by design) is the right side of the curve,
arguments based around a sorites notwithstanding.
Better add test compatability toolkits to that feature negotiation
idea. Anyone know if the next version of XML will comes test cases?
Bill de hÓra
