• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XMLdoesn'tdese rve its "X".)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 16:09:06 -0500
• In-reply-to: <54A592B9BBDC1C46A2C87B6D1F2479AF042826@v...>

3/5/2002 4:05:22 PM, "John Evdemon" <jevdemon@v...> wrote:

  
>Isn't the phrase well-formed XML a bit redundant?
>

I'd guess that Simon meant "without a DTD or schema to 
imply all the bits that would have to be serialized
without them."  All legal XML is well-formed, so the 
"well-formed" qualifier generally means "no
DTD/Schema."

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