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

Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:03:56 -0500
• In-reply-to: <1040295471.2526.9.camel@ibook>

vdv@d... (Eric van der Vlist) writes:
> I had always 
>understood Common XML as a set of conservative rules to be used for
>what you send if you want to avoid any interoperability trouble.
>
>Using it the other way round to be conservative in what you accept
>would on the contrary bring you a lot of troubles would be a disaster
>IMO !

The "troubles" are already built into the XML 1.0 specification, To some
extent, I've seen Common XML as a reponse to the conservatism that XML
1.0 _allowed_ for non-validating parsers as regards skipping external
DTD subsets and entities.  Much of my motivation in writing Common XML
was to show readers how to avoid the landmines produced by tools being
conservative in what they accept and perhaps liberal in what they
discard.

For those new to the conversation, Common XML is described at:
http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt

It seems to be a set of conclusions which developers reach regularly.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Internal entities removed from XML?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Internal entities removed from XML?
• Next by Date: Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
• Previous by thread: xpointer() scheme working draft published
• Next by thread: Re: Common XML (was Re: Internal entities)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread