- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 06:15:20 -0700
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, <mozilla-mathml@mozilla.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
Please excuse this, perhaps out of context, response .... From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> > 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 current > practice. Could you sketch for us what "flexibility of vocabularies" means to you ? Seth
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 14:47:24 UTC