- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:14:52 -0400
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
I haven't gotten a rise out of anyone with this, but I will make a last try. Several people have told me off-list that the reason for non-reportable errors is so people who don't care about SGML compatibility need not implement it. If this is the case, I would rather that we add an explicit notion of an "SGML compatibility warning." XML parsers would be recommended, but not required, to issue these for things like -- in comments and ambiguous content models. I would rather have plain language that reflects out intent, than language which, when properly decoded, reflects our intent. The terms error and warning are well established in the compiler community (as is the fact that ignoring warnings can cause you real trouble). Let's use them. -- David RE delenda est. I am not a number. I am an undefined character. _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________ http://www.dynamicdiagrams.com/services_map_main.html
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 1996 15:10:11 UTC