Re: On subsetting XML...

At 17:44 2003 01 16 -0500, wrote:
>So, I'm not sure that the semantics of
>"ignoring what you don't understand" are
>as simple when you consider a system that
>manipulates content as it flows through
>the system.
>> The XMLP arguments for not wanting DTDs were
>> very convincing, the arguments on PIs entirely
>> unconvincing.  Just my opinion of course. -Tim
>I agree that it's not an entirely clear-cut call
>and that the case for no DTDs is more compelling.
>I just don't think the "no PI" call is so obviously
>evil as some seem to imply.  Allowing them would
>certainly add some complication to our processing

In what way can *always ignoring* the PIs be any
different from the case where you never have any?

That is, how can SOAP require an XML subset that 
forbids (i.e., does not include) PIs?


Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 18:14:11 UTC