Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Mike Champion wrote: > It seems to me that Sean raises a more profound issue. If XML has > brought real interoperability benefits despite widespread > non-conformance to the spec (whether we call the non-conformance "bugs" > or "features"), then the argument that the benefits are threatened by > non-conformant implementations seems highly suspect. Not neccessarily. I take Tim's point about designing these things in (bugs, optimizations, features, depending on your perspective). It makes sense to look at this in terms of cost/benefit. I doubt that calling something that knowingly doesn't process XML an XML processor (and never can, by design) is the right side of the curve, arguments based around a sorites notwithstanding. Better add test compatability toolkits to that feature negotiation idea. Anyone know if the next version of XML will comes test cases? Bill de hÓra
|
