len bullard wrote: > It means the editors/designers/ERB of the specification have > specified a language that does not violate the technical requirements of > the parent specification. It does not prevent them from > writing one which is technically complete. If they can do > that, they can write a specification that needs no clarification. But if an XML document is defined to be an SGML document, doesn't a scrupulous implementor have to read the SGML specification to *ensure* that the XML spec is complete, accurate and sufficiently constraining? "This national law is intended to be consistent with international law. If there is a conflict between this law and international law, consult international law." Doesn't a careful lawyer have to read international law before interpreting the local one? Paul PrescodReceived on Tuesday, 24 June 1997 22:52:31 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:44 EDT