Re: Too late, is it?

> 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."