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

RE: A call for reason

• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:30:47 GMT

> Net result is that SML data will be well-formed but invalid
> name error will not be reported.  Is this too much to ask?

Having SML being well formed but not valid XML is not too much to ask,
but...

The name rules are part of the well formed productions, they are not a
validation constraint.

So as it stands, there will exist valid SML documents that are not well
formed XML and will therefore trigger a fatal error if given to an XML
parser.

David

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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: A call for reason
    • From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Web Architecture
• Next by Date: re: [SML] Without attrs, you don't need empty elements...
• Previous by thread: RE: A call for reason
• Next by thread: RE: A call for reason
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread