- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:36:36 -0500
- To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@topologi.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
At 1:24 AM +1100 1/14/03, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >(Repost from Wednesday. This never made the archive, not sure why.) > >I think Chris misses out another option: > >?) Refactor XML so that there are four kinds of XML processors: headlessWF, > WF, typed, and valid. Deprecate WF in favour of WF and typedWF in all W3C > specifications. > > - Headless WF must have no DOCTYPE. And what happens if it does? How does a document indicate that it is headless? Simply by not having a DOCTYPE? Or is this a parser option? What happens if a headless parser encounters a DOCTYPE? This feels very rough to me. -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002) | | http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 09:42:09 UTC