- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:17:59 +0000
- To: public-sml@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5558 ------- Comment #1 from johnarwe@us.ibm.com 2008-03-13 05:17 ------- Let's not define terms we don't own. "XML document" is defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#sec-documents In order to not substantively change the specs, #2 "to" would need to be "well-formed XML document", no? "well-formed" is also a precise term, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#dt-wellformed What exactly is the problem with "Each document in the model MUST be a well-formed XML document."? I don't buy the argument that just because the word document appears twice the definition is circular: the second use is modified via the adjectives "well-formed XML", i.e. the set of documents in the (the? not a or any?) [SML] model must be members of a particular sub-class of all documents... namely, well-formed XML documents.
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 05:18:33 UTC