• To: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>, "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:45:09 -0500
• References: <XVYSJH4WYTD9542WJH1LI97UJHZT75.3c48ab86@MChamp> <02a801c1a075$f1ad5190$0a2e249b@n...> <02b201c1a077$61f800c0$0a2e249b@n...> <010201c1a092$5d4e3380$0500a8c0@carnage>

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> I think "disaster" is a rather strong word. XHTML 1.1 is not even a year
old
> yet. I'd give it a few more months before complaining. No schema validator
> handles all of W3C XML schema yet (those that claim to are buggy as hell
or
> support a subset).

The XHTML 1.1 DTD conforms to XML 1.0, and validation has not changed since
XML 1.0 itself. This means that the W3C has produced a legal DTD that major
XML implementations are not capable of _parsing in validating mode_. I find
that surprising.

What does this say about conformance to XML 1.0 itself?

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Next by Date: RE: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Previous by thread: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Next by thread: Re: XML is easy, was: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread