Re: Processing instructions for style tweaks?

Glenn Adams (glenn@stonehand.com)
Wed, 14 Dec 94 09:50:14 -0500


Message-Id: <9412141450.AA01505@trubetzkoy.metis.com>
From: Glenn Adams <glenn@stonehand.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 09:50:14 -0500
To: James C Deikun <jcdst10+@pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Processing instructions for style tweaks?
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <www-html@www0.cern.ch>


  Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 01:47:24 -0500 (EST)
  From: James C Deikun <jcdst10+@pitt.edu>

  Didn't they teach you in algebra not to compare apples and oranges?

Semantics 1A eh?  OK, perhaps the problem here is the rubrics. I
interpreted "full validating SGML parser" as a full-featured,
validating SGML parser. In contrast, a "fully validating SGML parser"
is a not necessarily full-featured, but fully validating.

My earlier contention was based on the premise that we were
talking about the former and not the latter. If it is the latter
that everyone else was talking about, then I withdraw my point of
issue.

I still stand by my conviction that servers should be responsible
for transmitting only fully validated data. This only addresses the
"be conservative in transmitting" dictum.  The other side of the
coin, "be liberal in receiving" certainly does require a flexible
parser, but doesn't (currently) demand a full-featured SGML parser,
nor should it.

Regards,
Glenn Adams