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

Re: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute o

• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute order)
• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:02:22 -0800
• References: <3549BAFD79A7D411A1CF00508B62B5BC0124B92E@e...><p04330100b83a7452045b@[192.168.254.4]>

> I'd argue that any spec that imposes additional constraints on 
> processors not imposed by XML 1.0 is not compliant with XML. 

I think this might usefully be called "strict compliance".  That
should be a familiar term for many people, with that meaning.

As in: "Such a spec isn't strictly compliant with XML, although
it does use XML in its surface syntax."

The general issue is what someone pointed out:  what to do
with things that aren't explicitly mentioned in a specification.
A strict interpretation of any spec says that you can't ever rely
on such things ... ergo, it's as if they're forbidden.  It's always
safe to read a good spec strictly.  If such a reading gives
nonsense, it's a spec problem.

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute order)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute order)
    • From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
  • RE: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute order)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Formal definition of PSVI (was Where have the element types gone?)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute order)
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute order)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute order)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread