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

Re: Parser compliance

• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>, xml-dev@i...
• Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:40:34 -0800

At 12:30 PM 11/17/99 +0000, Richard Lanyon wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, James Clark wrote:
>> XML 1.0 DTD validation isn't very useful for the things
>> I'm interested in and I want to keep the code size small.
>
>It's not useful for our processing, either, but it's possible that some
>people might want our processor to tell them what's wrong with their XML
>before processing it.

I have often wondered where this myth arose that validating against a DTD
will tell you, in useful real-world terms, "what's wrong with your XML".

 -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 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: Parser compliance
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Parser compliance
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@t...>
  • Re: Parser compliance
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Parser compliance
    • From: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>
  • Re: Parser compliance
    • From: "Lauren Wood" <lauren@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
• Next by Date: Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
• Previous by thread: re: Parser compliance
• Next by thread: Re: Parser compliance
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread