Re: non-reportable errors
> I haven't gotten a rise out of anyone with this, but I will make a last
> try. Several people have told me off-list that the reason for
> non-reportable errors is so people who don't care about SGML compatibility
> need not implement it.
It seems to me that from a CS point of view, a non-reportable error
sounds like an error in the specification! If you mean `it is optional
that an XML application detect this as an error', say that.
> I would rather have plain language that reflects out intent, than
> language which, when properly decoded, reflects our intent.
> The terms error and warning are well established in the compiler
> community (as is the fact that ignoring warnings can cause you real
> trouble). Let's use them.
Agreed. We already have obfuscatory language in the SGML spec!
XML must use the kind of language (whether or not one considers it to be
English) that is used in programming language specifications, and not
the kind of language that is used in legal briefs, legal opinions,
political statements or, for that matter, Sunday Morning Homilies :-)