Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
Jeni Tennison scripsit: > You're surprisingly right that the XML 1.0 Rec. doesn't say anything > about whether or not elements and attributes are reported to an > application. (I actually think that this was because this assumption > was so fundamental that they didn't think that they needed to spell it > out; it *does* explicitly say that some things *don't* need to be > reported to the application, such as comments, which is what makes me > think the default is "report everything"). Not really: for example, attribute order is not reported by any parser I know, except possibly Expat, and even there the documentation does not guarantee it. I pushed for the Core WG to issue errata saying that the existence of elements and attributes had to be reported (already true for attribute values, PIs, and a few other things), but the consensus was that to do such a thing right would involve incorporating the Infoset, and that was too big a job for an erratum. > Of course I'm not saying that a JITT processor, or any other > processor, can't treat a document that happens to use XML markup in > some other way; it's just that if it *does*, it's not an XML > processor. And besides, LMNL is a way cooler acronym than JITT. -- John Cowan jcowan@r... www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration is exchanged. So it was at King's Bench in common law England; so it was under the common law in the American colonies; so it was through more than two centuries of jurisprudence in this country; and so it is today. --_Specht v. Netscape_
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format