Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 03:21 PM 1/17/00 -0500, John Cowan wrote: >Peter Murray-Rust scripsit: > >> - tool threw a fatal error because <!DOCTYPE was missing > >The XML Rec does not forbid a parser to treat validation errors as fatal. > >> - REC-xml and DOM specify DTD but spec.dtd is not mounted > >Non-validating parsers that read DTDs are entitled to get upset >if the DTD cannot be read. > >> - several tools regard the absence of a DTD as a fatal error (i.e. they >> appear to be validating by default). > >Again, that behvaior is not forbidden. I don't think Peter's point is that these behaviors are forbidden, but rather that they make interoperability difficult. Perhaps a few more things should have been forbidden. Peter wrote: >Henry and I are obviously keen to show that XML is simple to use with the >correct tools and that interoperability is achievable. I'd love to show that as well, but lately I seem to be writing books that detail the possible pitfalls and suggest strategies for avoiding them rather than claiming XML makes interoperability easy. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
|
