• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:39:50 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <r02000200-1028-D1176A3A460611D8AD220003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• References: <r02000200-1028-D1176A3A460611D8AD220003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

One thing I noticed in several of the articles I read on this issue 
from authors on both sides of the fence was a disturbing tendency to 
confuse well-formedness with validity. I am firm in my belief that 
well-formedness is a minimum criterion we should not compromise on. 
Validity is much more negotiable.

Some times it was obvious from context what the author really meant. 
Sometimes it wasn't.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

• Follow-Ups:
  • Well-formed=Bad-karma? (was Re: Postel's law, exceptions)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Previous by thread: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by thread: Well-formed=Bad-karma? (was Re: Postel's law, exceptions)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread