- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 12:49:22 -0800
- To: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
- Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Terje Bless wrote: > > On 06.03.00 at 10:54, David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote: > > >Gerald Oskoboiny wrote: > >> > >>That doesn't seem good, indeed. I thought SP's XML limitations sounded > >>like obscure things that wouldn't come up much in practice, but that > >>doesn't seem to be the case. > > > >Nope. I'd actually make that clearer in the warning that you're now > >providing -- the little footnote does make it sound like they're quite > >obscure, but it should become explicit that the consequence is that it may > >accept documents that any XML tool _must_ reject completely. > > Actually, I've had several people with pretty good knowledge of XML say > that SP's limitations are truely obscure and should appear next to never in > the wild. Counter-examples were what started the whole discussion. - Dave p.s. Pardon if I say I don't really care how the bug gets fixed, so long as it gets fixed -- ASAP.
Received on Monday, 6 March 2000 15:49:29 UTC