Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
i'd be happy with an operational/denotational definition for xml notation in terms the dom tree abstraction. maybe, while i'm at it, i'd even hope that it encompassed the concept 'valid'. (as a note to the proofreaders, although i've left the 's' word out here, i, as a rule, prefer unapproved etomological license to licensed grammatical transgression. despite what my oed's editors may have read.) Paul Prescod wrote: > ... > > So I'm convinced that the XML WG believes (unknowingly!) that XML has > semantics even as they deny it. The concrete step that they could take to > prove that I am wrong is to require the DOM to be defined in terms of > XML's syntax instead of the tree abstraction. > 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...)
|
