Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I'd argue that any spec that imposes additional constraints on > processors not imposed by XML 1.0 is not compliant with XML. I think this might usefully be called "strict compliance". That should be a familiar term for many people, with that meaning. As in: "Such a spec isn't strictly compliant with XML, although it does use XML in its surface syntax." The general issue is what someone pointed out: what to do with things that aren't explicitly mentioned in a specification. A strict interpretation of any spec says that you can't ever rely on such things ... ergo, it's as if they're forbidden. It's always safe to read a good spec strictly. If such a reading gives nonsense, it's a spec problem. - Dave
|
