• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:24:48 -0500

Sean McGrath wrote:

> At 12:56 PM 11/10/00 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
> > >What is important is that we all agree on what XML 1.0 is, and given
its
> > >precise specification I think there is precious little room for
argument
> > >regarding this.
>
> SGML was precisely specified. XML is precisely specifed.
>
> Here is a precise statement:
>          "XML parsers may or may not whistle Dixie".
>
> A precise statement of an optional behaviour in a data
> notation specification is an ambiguity at the
> data interoperability level.
>

    Ok, fine. You've identified a problem (I agree that this is a problem)
Simon says that the solution is to eliminate DTDs (or at least something to
that effect). I say that such a solution does not "fix" XML 1.0 so much as
redefine XML into something else than XML. XML is XML warts and all.

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Options in XML 1.0
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Options in XML 1.0
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Options in XML 1.0
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Options in XML 1.0
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Options in XML 1.0
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• Previous by thread: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• Next by thread: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread