• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Karl Waclawek <karl@w...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:35:59 -0500
• In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204175833.022d1828@p...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0501280904130.20504-100000@s...> <200502032213.56841.david.lyon@c...> <4202A983.6030803@z...> <4202C65B.7000207@o...> <6.0.0.22.0.20050204175833.022d1828@p...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

Toni Uusitalo wrote:

> 
> The following document is well-formed (and valid too but that's not the 
> point) but very troublesome to parse for MSXML (IE6 crashes) and Expat. 
> Works ok with RXP and Parsifal - haven't test others.

Worked fine with current Expat.

Karl

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>

• References:
  • xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>

• Prev by Date: IT Manager Survey Finds 59% Of UK Businesses Are Now Using XML
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread