• To: elharo@m... (Elliotte Rusty Harold)
• Subject: Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:34:00 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: veillard@r..., jcowan@r... (John Cowan), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <p04330100b9d326d782ae@[192.168.254.4]> from "Elliotte Rusty Harold" at Oct 16, 2002 10:24:46 AM

Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:

> Optional checks worry me. This just adds another point of confusion 
> like the one in XML 1.0 with non-deterministic content models, where 
> some parsers accept a document and some reject it. If the check is 
> optional, it should further be guaranteed to be a non-fatal error, 
> even when the check is made.

That is why we say that parsers which do normalization checking must report
to the application, and emphasize that lack of normalization is not a WF
error.

-- 
Only do what only you can do.           John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  --Edsger W. Dijkstra,                 http://www.reutershealth.com
    deceased 6 August 2002              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
• Next by Date: Separation of Concerns (was Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published)
• Previous by thread: Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
• Next by thread: Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread