• From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>
• To: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:36:03 -0700

That indeed would be an interesting XML conformance experiment. However, I
was referring to precedents of specification rather than precedents of
implementations' conformance levels. SOAP is the first specification I've
heard of that treats DOCTYPE declarations as errors. Are there any other
specifications that do this?

Evan

----- Original Message -----
From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
To: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:23 AM
Subject: Re:  Debating "civil disobedience" against
overlycomplicatedspecs


> At 01:43 24/09/2001 -0700, Evan Lenz wrote:
> >I know of no other vocabulary that calls itself an application of XML in
> >which I do not have the freedom, if I so choose, to declare an internal
DTD
> >subset in order to declare an internal entity.
>
> Now that would make a *very* interesting experiment.
>
> How many of the following do the right thing with
> internal document type declaration subsets?
>
> XHTML Browsers
> XML-RPC Servers
> WAP Gateways (WML Processors)
> JXTA (XML "subset")
> RSS clients
> SVG browsers
> WSDL processors
>
> Sean

• References:
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overlycomplicatedspecs
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Unique values in XML documents
• Next by Date: RE: Debating "civil disobedience" against overlycomplicatedspecs
• Previous by thread: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overlycomplicatedspecs
• Next by thread: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread