W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > December 1996

Re: RS/RE, again (sorry)

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:59:49 -0500
Message-Id: <199612181659.LAA00464@nathaniel.ebt>
To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>Fine. So in your opinion, should the "validator" be part of the XML 
>specification or not? 

Not part of the *language* specification.

I do think we need pGroves and validator behaviour defined though.

>If so, does it really matter what the "parser" returns?

Yes, because it is the *foundation* of the entire application
architecture. If it is not rigourously defined such that it
is trivial to prove it correct, no other part of the system can
be known to be correct. I like foundations of stone, not sand.

>Should we specify a single standardized validation scheme or not? If we do,
>what do you propose it should say about whitespace? If we do not, how can we
>claim to be even vaguly SGML compatible? As you mentioned in your last 
>message, SGML's validation scheme would be just one of an infinite number
>of equally "valid" schemes.

I propose two: a "pure" XML validator, which does no transformation,
of pGroves and another "SGML" validator, that removes whitespace 
according to "normal" SGML rules.

I am not against whitespace removal at the application level, but am
strongly against putting such functionality into the parser for the
meta-language.
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 1996 12:01:18 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:49 EDT