Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> 2) some say if XML has illegal characters it is not XML but I say - > then why does > the spec talk about errors in the XML (if the XML had errors, then by > that reasoning > it wouldn't be XML, ...) If you're going to get legalese about it, then: (a) XML is a language defined in a specification. (b) A document is not a language, so a document is never XML; nor can "an XML" contain illegal characters, nor can "the XML" contain errors. (c) The XML language specification defines what it means for a piece of text to be a "well-formed XML document". It's a slightly unfortunate term, because it's easy to imagine that it implies the existence of XML documents that are not well-formed. But that would be a misreading of the spec: no such category exists. (d) The specification never talks about "errors in the XML". That would be a contradiction in terms. The specification in fact doesn't give a name to the thing that has errors, though it would be reasonable to talk about "errors in the input to the XML processor". Michael Kay Saxonica
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
