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

Re: Nested DTDs

• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: "Richard L. Goerwitz" <richard@g...>, xml-dev@i...
• Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 08:53:39 -0700

At 10:30 AM 6/18/99 -0400, Richard L. Goerwitz wrote:
>I'm always wondering why all this "for interoperability" language is
>in the spec.  It's hard to know what weight to assign something that's
>neither legal nor illegal - or something that's technically valid, but
>discouraged in some usage contexts that aren't very clearly defined in
>the spec.

When XML was created, there was no XML software, but there was a considerable
array of existing SGML software.  If you follow all the for-interoperability
rules, your XML docs should work just fine with pre-1996 SGML software.
That's all.  I *think* that's what the spec says:

for interoperability 
      [Definition:] A non-binding recommendation included to increase the 
      chances that XML documents can be processed by the existing installed 
      base of SGML processors which predate the WebSGML Adaptations Annex to 
      ISO 8879. 

-Tim

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...)

• Prev by Date: Re: "For Interoperability"
• Next by Date: Re: Nested DTDs
• Previous by thread: Re: Nested DTDs
• Next by thread: Re: Nested DTDs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread