• From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@s...>
• To: <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:51:19 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Brownell" <david-b@p...>
To: "Richard Tobin" <richard@c...>
Cc: <xml-dev@x...>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Ambiguity in XML spec


.
>
> Actually I think the XML spec would have been substantially improved,
> in the technical sense, were it to have been directly validated by an
> implementation -- using only the standardized productions.

I strongly agree, and hope this is addressed in the corrected version of XML
1.0 if it ever comes out, or in XML 1.1 / 2.0.  A colleague implementing an
XML parser "from scratch" --  that is, without previous exposure to all the
folklore that one picks up from SGML, XML-DEV, deconstructing other people's
code, etc. -- stumbled over all sorts of little problems with the
standardized productions.


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
    • From: Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@n...>

• References:
  • Ambiguity in XML spec
    • From: "Brown, Bryan" <bryanb@u...>
  • Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
    • From: richard@c... (Richard Tobin)
  • Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
    • From: "David Brownell" <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: thoughts on XInclude
• Next by Date: Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
• Previous by thread: Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
• Next by thread: Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread