- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:04:18 -0400
- To: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Cc: xml-editor@w3.org
At 1:26 PM +0100 7/23/02, Richard Tobin wrote: >But as I said, I've been persuaded that we shouldn't require 1.0 >parsers to reject documents labelled other than 1.0. What I would >really appreciate is some feedback on the possibility of changing the >terminology so that such documents are "not 1.0 well-formed, but >acceptable by 1.0 parsers" rather than "1.0 well-formed, but >rejectable by 1.0 parsers". > This just makes the existing mess of different conformance levels to XML worse. Currently there are three levels of conformance: 1. Well-formed 2. Well-formed with no optional errors (like ambiguous content models or version="1.1") 3. Valid You want to add a fourth level, not well-formed but OK. This significantly complexifies the XML story. It makes to impossible to say a parser must reject all malformed documents. It adds still more weasel words we have to use when trying to teach this stuff accurately. I think this is a very bad idea. Leave the existing spec alone: no erratum, no change. XML 1.0 is defined by the XML 1.0 spec as originally published. Make any changes in future versions if you really must, but don't touch XML 1.0. -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) | | http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 09:14:01 UTC