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

Re: Too late, is it?

From: <streich@austin.sar.slb.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 08:20:34 CST
Message-Id: <9611131420.AA15742@odie>
To: W3C-SGML-WG@w3.org, ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> I note that some weasle-wording has been added to v002 which refers to
> "detecting HTML documents", but the result drives a coach-and-four
> through the carefully crafted definitions of "well-formed" and
> "valid".  That is, I take it that although documents with any of the
> elect eleven empty errors are neither well-formed nor valid, they are
> never-the-less required not to cause errors, and in fact to be
> processed `correctly' by anything claiming to be an XML application.

I get a chuckle every time I imagine the look on the face of the
mythical CS grad as he or she reads that "weasel-worded" paragraph.
And here we were complaining about the language of RE handling in
the SGML standard.

I think the likelihood of getting that one right can best be summed up
as "fat chance."

Received on Wednesday, 13 November 1996 09:22:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:20 UTC