Re: what's a parser's job? [was: RE: SD5 - Namespaces - New Versi on 2]

Andrew Layman wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the qualification.  I meant only that one can read a
> well-formed XML document, producing a tree (grove) of its parts, without
> actually going to the second level and validating it, so I see that we
> are in agreement.
> 
> I don't mind being educated on specialized use of terminology.  (Though
> I'm still getting over the shock I had when I discovered three
> different, vocal user communities all using "meta-data" to mean three
> wildly different things.)

This is one issue where one might take a lesson from Dr. Goldfarb's 
speech on standards authoring:  he called it, "the law of conservation
of
nouns".  It's a definite DUH, but Lee is quite right that some 
terminology disambiguation will help clarify the discussions.  It is 
also something to feed to the FAQ.  Schedules being what they are, 
there may not be time to do it on the list, but such a list of 
terms might speed things up once done.

len