- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:05:50 -0400
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, www-tag@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, public-xg-mmsem@w3.org, newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) scripsit:
> I guess an approach that depends on routinely ignoring xml:id processing
> errors and not validating the XML does not seem to me like a wise design
> choice,
A matter of opinion and/or taste. People do routinely work with invalid
XML documents, which is the whole reason for introducing xml:id;
xml:id processing errors reintroduce a little bit of validity, which is
why processors SHOULD report them for those who care. But there is
no MUSTard about what XML applications do with such errors.
--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
--Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 21:06:07 UTC