• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:11:36 -0500

At 02:39 PM 3/29/01 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>Er, well, <blushing>attribute order is explicitly not sigificant
>in SGML, and so everyone "just knew" that the same was true in
>XML, and in fact all the software was written that way, and
>the 1.0 spec's failure to say so was a huge gaping 900-foot
>plastic erratum, which is now fixed.</blushing> -Tim

Thanks, Tim.

Now if only we knew quite how it happened that way in SGML - might help to 
evaluate whether the blushing is worth it!


Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
    • From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@m...>

• References:
  • RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
• Next by Date: Re: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
• Previous by thread: RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
• Next by thread: RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread