- From: <streich@austin.sar.slb.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 08:20:34 CST
- To: W3C-SGML-WG@w3.org, ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> 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." bob
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 1996 09:22:20 UTC