• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• To: David Megginson <ak117@f...>, james anderson <mecom-gmbh@m...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:35:45 GMT

> No, it's not SGML's fault, at least not this time.  Conforming SGML
> parsers are allowed to continue processing if they want to, and are
> even allowed not to report errors at all (as long as they don't claim
> to be "validating parsers").  XML has gone way beyond any SGML
> requirements with this one.

Always remember that your software doesn't have to be a conforming
XML processor unless you want it to be.  There are several applications
where you certainly *don't* want to be a conforming processor, such as
an XML editor.

-- Richard

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: YAXPAPI (Yet Another XML Parser API)- an XDEV proposal
• Next by Date: IDL?
• Previous by thread: EntityDef v/s PEDef
• Next by thread: Re: Failure Criteria: Simple XML Event-Based API for Java
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread