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

RE: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:02:54 -0600

Yes. Good point. The XML Declaration could be part 
of the contract.  The real issue is not 
having to explain it.  The more explanation, 
the more gray goo results.

COTS is more or less assumed.  We specify the 
browser in our response.   One might also 
consider the issues of non-web browser 
containers that wrap web media objects.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

    Actually you could specify use of the XML Declaration within ISO SGML,
and note that W3C XML 1.0 conforms to this.

Most government agencies have a COTS (common off the shelf) escape clause
that encourages the use of just that in the name of cost and efficiency
savings. For example, your government agency will allow the use of IE or
Netscape even though they don't strictly conform to ISO HTML or do they wish
you to write a custom browser?

... but your point is very well taken and I think we agree on this issue.

• Prev by Date: Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• Previous by thread: Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Next by thread: RE: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread