• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:48:12 -0500
• In-reply-to: <E18Za94-0007ri-00@b...>

uche.ogbuji@f... (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
>My objection to their usage depends heavily on custom within the XML
>community.  I thought this would go without saying, but I guess not. 

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.

Beyond that, I use the more generic term "markup" for material that's
still syntactically-structured text.

-- 
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: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
    • From: "Mike Plusch" <mplusch@c...>

• References:
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Next by Date: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Previous by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Next by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread