• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XMLdoesn'tdese rve its "X".)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 05 Mar 2002 17:10:25 -0500
• In-reply-to: <54A592B9BBDC1C46A2C87B6D1F2479AF042826@v...>
• References: <54A592B9BBDC1C46A2C87B6D1F2479AF042826@v...>

On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 16:05, John Evdemon wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:03 PM, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > 
> > Also, saying "show me this information as well-formed XML" is a pretty
> > good way to assess how deeply complicated all the hidden bits are.
> >  
> Isn't the phrase well-formed XML a bit redundant?

Sure, though I think it's acquired a meaning slightly stronger than
simply "XML".  

I could have said "just XML with no schemas, DTDs, or other magic", but
I think "well-formed XML" both says it better and suggests that the
notion of well-formedness (as a category separate from validity) is
important.
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • RE: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdese rve its "X".)
    • From: "John Evdemon" <jevdemon@v...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdese rve its "X".)
• Next by Date: Re: RE: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XMLdoesn'tdese rve its "X".)
• Previous by thread: RE: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdese rve its "X".)
• Next by thread: Re: RE: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XMLdoesn'tdese rve its "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread