• From: David Brownell <db@e...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 19:59:21 -0800

Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 
>     You misunderstand me. I understand that it is possible for validating
> and non-validating parsers to generate the same parse tree, what I am
> looking for is a specification that parsers need meet to *ensure* that this
> occurs. It is this specification that needs to be given an official standing
> for use by XML applications.

Would it be appropriate perhaps to have the default XML processing
in the Java platform work that way?  That'd cover at least one class
of applications ... :-)

I don't know too many folk who'd be upset at seeing this get changed
in the XML specification, however, except that it'd be an incompatible
change.

- Dave

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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...)

• References:
  • Re: Between raw and cooked II: Are? DTDs are just for validation
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why Doesn't IE5 use the DTD to Validate?
• Next by Date: Re: XML query languages and their encodings
• Previous by thread: Re: Between raw and cooked II: Are? DTDs are just for validation
• Next by thread: Is validity an option?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread