• From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:21:07 -0500

Kay Michael wrote:

> Yes. Section 1.2, terminology, says that all sentences beginning with "For
> interoperability" can be safely ignored unless you are interested in getting
> your document through a piece of software that wasn't written to process
> XML.

I have already bitched to xml-editor@w... about the use of
"For interoperability" and "must" in the same sentence, suggesting
that "should" is the correct modal verb.  All other uses of "F.i."
use "should".

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@c...
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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: empty tags and the XMl 1.0 spec
    • From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: empty tags and the XMl 1.0 spec
• Next by Date: Re: ModSAX: Proposed Core Features
• Previous by thread: RE: empty tags and the XMl 1.0 spec
• Next by thread: Re: empty tags and the XMl 1.0 spec
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread