• To: simonstl@s... (Simon St.Laurent)
• Subject: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:13:56 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1023-D9101B0A2A4311D781E20003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]> from "Simon St.Laurent" at Jan 17, 2003 12:48:12 PM

Simon St.Laurent scripsit:

> I've always assumed that "compatible with XML" meant "would pass through
> an XML 1.0 parser without a fatal error".  There are lots of ways to
> subset XML and remain compatible on those terms.

The compatibility seems to run the other way: ConciseXML is a subset of XML 1.0.

-- 
De plichten van een docent zijn divers,         John Cowan
die van het gehoor ook.                         jcowan@r...
      --Edsger Dijkstra                         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: "Mike Plusch" <mplusch@c...>

• References:
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Next by Date: RE: Adam Bosworth Article - what does "direct access" m ean?
• Previous by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Next by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread