Re: Simple XML conformance
At 03:21 PM 1/17/00 -0500, John Cowan wrote: >Peter Murray-Rust scripsit: > >> - tool threw a fatal error because <!DOCTYPE was missing > >The XML Rec does not forbid a parser to treat validation errors as fatal. > >> - REC-xml and DOM specify DTD but spec.dtd is not mounted > >Non-validating parsers that read DTDs are entitled to get upset >if the DTD cannot be read. > >> - several tools regard the absence of a DTD as a fatal error (i.e. they >> appear to be validating by default). > >Again, that behvaior is not forbidden. I don't think Peter's point is that these behaviors are forbidden, but rather that they make interoperability difficult. Perhaps a few more things should have been forbidden. Peter wrote: >Henry and I are obviously keen to show that XML is simple to use with the >correct tools and that interoperability is achievable. I'd love to show that as well, but lately I seem to be writing books that detail the possible pitfalls and suggest strategies for avoiding them rather than claiming XML makes interoperability easy. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com 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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format