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

RE: A simple guy with a simple problem

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>, Sean McGrath <sean@d...>,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:42:20 -0600

So to ask as straight man:

Why does XML have a feature that permits 
a "bad practice"?

1.  Compatibility?
2.  Keeping the SGML experts happy?
3.  A simple solution that has 
    complicated results if misapplied?

Not XML, but here is an interesting article 
illustrating some results of bad practice 
and what can happen if the simple 
approach is preferred. (Try the simple 
thing first and wait for the results...).

http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/01q1/greathack-1.html

Stunning information.  The architects tried to 
make it easy then the world made it hard.  So 
they adjust but not before the damage is done.

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...]

The deeper and de facto bad practice is in having a 
production system rely on defaults out of an external 
DTD subset at all.  Sean gives a good example of why 
this is the case.  Avoid this bad practice and you're
fine.  -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • ??? (was RE: A simple guy with a simple problem)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: A simple guy with a simple problem
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: xml schema validation ?
• Next by Date: Re: patient info schema
• Previous by thread: RE: A simple guy with a simple problem
• Next by thread: ??? (was RE: A simple guy with a simple problem)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread