Re: text/html for xml extensions of XHTML

Please excuse this, perhaps out of context, response ....

From: "Simon St.Laurent" <>

> XML program structures, even without validation running, are typically far
> too brittle to ignore extra information caused by extra child
> elements.  You'd get a lot of strange errors where documents that could be
> processed in certain contexts would fail in others.

But what is actually at error here:  the brittle processors, or the XML
documents?  I would say it was the brittle processors ... what would you
say?   Incidentally I can't  form a "valid to the author" response to all
the emails that appear in my mailbox ..... so I don't see why one could
assume that some XML processor should be expected to do any better.

> I've argued for a long while that flexibility (not standardization) of
> vocabularies is the real lesson of XML, but that's not reflected in
> practice.

Could you sketch for us what "flexibility of vocabularies" means to you ?


Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 14:47:24 UTC