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

Re: more grist

• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 17:15:32 +0000

Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...> writes:

<snip/>

> b) The system is kept open and I have alternative choices to do so.
> 
> In other words, I find it very difficult to admit that a specification
> can restrict the scope of possibilities opened by XML.

For sure -- the way I put this is that wellformedness and validity
are the XML 1.0 concepts, and _nothing_ which comes after can change
them.  The Namespace REC _added_ a notion of namespace compliance, and 
XML Schema _adds_ a notion of schema-validity assessment, but nobody
is ever going to _force_ you to use those notions if they don't serve
your needs.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c...
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: more grist
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • RE: more grist
    • From: Leigh Dodds <ldodds@i...>
  • Re: more grist
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: more grist
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more grist
• Next by Date: Re: What is the advantage of RELAX in comparison to Schemas?
• Previous by thread: Re: Homework assignment was: Re: more grist
• Next by thread: Re: more grist
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread