W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2001

Re: text/html for xml extensions of XHTML

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 06:15:20 -0700
Message-ID: <007701c0d6f7$c75e8320$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, <mozilla-mathml@mozilla.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
Please excuse this, perhaps out of context, response ....

From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>

> XML program structures, even without validation running, are typically far
> too brittle to ignore extra information caused by extra child
> elements.  You'd get a lot of strange errors where documents that could be
> processed in certain contexts would fail in others.

But what is actually at error here:  the brittle processors, or the XML
documents?  I would say it was the brittle processors ... what would you
say?   Incidentally I can't  form a "valid to the author" response to all
the emails that appear in my mailbox ..... so I don't see why one could
assume that some XML processor should be expected to do any better.

> I've argued for a long while that flexibility (not standardization) of
> vocabularies is the real lesson of XML, but that's not reflected in
current
> practice.

Could you sketch for us what "flexibility of vocabularies" means to you ?

Seth
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 14:47:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:26 GMT