• From: David Megginson <ak117@f...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 17:13:52 -0500

Sean Mc Grath writes:

 > As far as I know "valid" has no SGML genesis. Does anyone know
 > where it came from?

An SGML parser can be "validating" or "non-validating" --
non-validating parsers are not required to report any errors, but they
must still read the DATA and produce the same output as validating
parsers.  

XML does not allow conforming, non-validating parsers in the SGML
sense (any parser without full error reporting is non-conforming), but
the PR has used the term to mean something like "a DTD-driven parser
with additional error-reporting requirements."


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 ak117@f...
Microstar Software Ltd.         dmeggins@m...
      http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/

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:
  • The word "valid" in XML
    • From: Sean Mc Grath <digitome@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Problems with whitespace and msxml
• Next by Date: RE: Problems with whitespace and msxml
• Previous by thread: The word "valid" in XML
• Next by thread: Re: The word "valid" in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread