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

Re: SUMMARY: XML Validation Issues (was: several threads)

• From: Chris Lilley <chris@w...>
• To: jelks@j...
• Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:24:25 +0200

Jelks Cabaniss wrote:

> But how to do it?  If XML 1.1 has a "valid='yes'|'no'" in the declaration, XML
> 1.1 documents may break when running under an XML 1.0 parser, since the XML 1.0
> BNF clearly states what can and can't be in the declaration.

But they would also notice the version="1.1" as well, and either stop or
ignore stuff they didn't understand...

> Maybe a PI could be formalized similar to the way the stylesheetX-MozillaX-Mozilla-Status: 8018
>         <?xml-assert implementation="valid"?>
> 
> (could also be "minimal" or "full" for the well-formed only options you
> mentioned).

I think the chance of doing this extension via a PI is minimal. 

--
Chris

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: SUMMARY: XML Validation Issues (was: several threads)
    • From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: multiple encoding specs (Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376)
• Next by Date: Re: multiple encoding specs (Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376)
• Previous by thread: Re: SUMMARY: XML Validation Issues (was: several threads)
• Next by thread: Re: SUMMARY: XML Validation Issues (was: several threads)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread