• From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:26:15 -0800

>So as it stands, there will exist valid SML documents that are not well
>formed XML and will therefore trigger a fatal error if given to an XML
>parser.

I was talking about removing an error reporting requirement
because I believe XML WG went overboard with the error
reporting requirements which places a heavy burden on
the performance of XML parsers.

IMHO, HTML crowd got burnt badly with HTML's forgivable parsers
and over-reacted.  There are other ways to solve this sort of
problems without resorting to high tariff on all.

Best,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark@d...
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com


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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe 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: A call for reason
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SML - a vote against
• Next by Date: RE: A call for reason, another go [SML et al]
• Previous by thread: RE: A call for reason
• Next by thread: re: RE: A call for reason
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread