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

Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overlycomplicatedspe

• From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:23:41 +0100

At 01:43 24/09/2001 -0700, Evan Lenz wrote:
>I know of no other vocabulary that calls itself an application of XML in
>which I do not have the freedom, if I so choose, to declare an internal DTD
>subset in order to declare an internal entity.

Now that would make a *very* interesting experiment.

How many of the following do the right thing with
internal document type declaration subsets?

XHTML Browsers
XML-RPC Servers
WAP Gateways (WML Processors)
JXTA (XML "subset")
RSS clients
SVG browsers
WSDL processors

Sean

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" againstoverlycomplicatedspecs
    • From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>

• References:
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overlycomplicatedspecs
    • From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overlycomplicatedspecs
• Next by Date: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
• Previous by thread: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overlycomplicatedspecs
• Next by thread: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" againstoverlycomplicatedspecs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread