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

Usefulness of well-formedness was RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Usefulness of well-formedness was RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• From: "Michael Leditschke" <mike@a...>
• Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:17:06 +1100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1023-2AA329BE36CA11D79A520003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]
> Sent: Monday, 3 February 2003 3:20 AM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject:  SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
> 
> 

<snip/>

> 
> Rick Jelliffe had an interesting post to www-tag on this recently:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0194.html
> 

<snip/>

Quoting from the above link;

"Well-formed should be a category of minority interest to 
editor-application developers, not something for public usage."



On the face of it, this appears to be a very sweeping statement. 

Granted, well-formedness covers a range of things from the basic
to the (for some) esoteric, but I would have thought things like
the redundancy inherent in XML's tag structure is of use to more 
applications that simply editors. 

What is the argument behind this statement?


Regards
Michael

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Usefulness of well-formedness was RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Next by Date: RE: Usefulness of well-formedness was RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Previous by thread: Re: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Next by thread: Re: Usefulness of well-formedness was RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread