Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Murray Altheim writes: >Unfortunately, I do not believe >compatibility with XML 1.0 validation is on the minds of all participants >and see a schism arising: XML 1.0 compatible, and XML-subset compatible. And Peter Murray-Rust writes: >Subset? Have to admit, I'm falling toward the subset camp. I talk a lot about 'simple XML', which is just the instance syntax without declarations of any kind except the XML one of course. I tried writing about the layer in between that and what I consider the 'meat' of validation, elements and attributes, and can't say I was happy, though I completed the exercise. I'll stick with XML 1.0 - all this time figuring out its quirks, and I'll still admit to liking it - but I can certainly understand why a lot of people could get along with just a subset. I'd have been a lot more comfortable with a three layer spec, for -instance syntax -structural declarations -minimization declarations But I can always pray for that next time around. Simon St.Laurent Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies 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...)
|
