• From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:11:37 +0000

[Mike.Champion@S...]
>My suspicion is the same as Don's -- people who don't have 
>interoperability problems are probably not pushing the XML 1.0  envelope, 
>either by accident or design.  I'd be very interested to hear about robust 
>applications that work well across a variety of  platforms and parsers yet 
>depend on  things (like attribute default values, processing instructions, 
>and external parsed entities) that are outside the Common XML Core.
Well said Sir. I have few interoperability problems with the XML systems I 
design because
I stay very clear of the XML envelope. If it had a name it would be 
something like
"subset of common XML". It does not have a name - formal or colloquial - and
that is unfortunate.  The <sht missing="i"/> hits the fan when I need to
process XML not under my control. Some of the XML coming over the wire
pushes the envelope and that is where the trouble starts.

Monastically yours,
Sean

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>

• References:
  • RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
    • From: Mike.Champion@S...

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by Date: XML and UI's: XSL Beans
• Previous by thread: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Next by thread: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread