• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:56:46 -0500 (EST)
• In-reply-to: From "(env:" "cowan)" at "Nov 12, 2001 09:47:57 pm"

Evan Lenz scripsit:

> Hmm, then what is this sentence meant to convey? "Nor does it constitute a
> minimum set of information that must be returned by an XML processor."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#intro

It meant that we were not changing the definition of XML 1.0.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@c...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan


-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@c...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Previous by thread: RE: Dynamic XML/XSL
• Next by thread: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread