[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Editing text

• From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:56:21 -0500

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> But in the case of XML, we
> can have our cake (the fans of strict, codified naming rules can exactly
> specify what is allowed) *AND* eat it (bewildered parser-writers can just
> use simple tokenizing).

Not if they want to be conforming.  All conforming XML processors are
required to detect well-formedness errrors.  If a XML document uses a
character in a name that is not allowed, the document is not well-formed
and every conforming XML parser is required to report it and is required
not to process the document.

I think it would be better if well-formedness allowed simple tokenizing
to be used, and the detailed checking of name characters was needed only
for validity, but that's not how the spec is currently.

James



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: Editing text
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Rebelling parser writers (Was: ]]> within a CDATA marked section ?)
• Next by Date: Re: NameChar (was: Editing text)
• Previous by thread: Re: Editing text
• Next by thread: Re: Editing text
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread