• From: "Michael Kay" <M.H.Kay@e...>
• To: "XML Dev" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:44:17 -0000

>Quite correct -- as I've pointed out in another posting, there is no
>explicit upper limit on the amount of information a parser may report.
>
>The real problem here is simply that the spec cannot answer my
>(originally, Henry's) question, and will have to be fixed.


This whole thread just reconfirms my view, stated a couple of weeks ago,
that the current spec is hopelessly informal and we need some PhD student to
sit down and produce a version in Z or something similar.

Incidentally, if we want to be picky (and we do), a corrollory of the first
assertion above is that a parser (read XML processor) is not required to
distingush the data it is passing to the application because the XML-REC
says it must, from data that it's passing to the application because it's
having a bad day.

Mike Kay


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...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other name...)
    • From: <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: CDATA by any other name... (was The raw and the cooked)
• Next by Date: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other name...)
• Previous by thread: Re: CDATA by any other name... (was The raw and the cooked)
• Next by thread: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other name...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread