[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: For compatibility
> Who is correct? Does "for compatibility" mean the parser is not required to > support this if it is not interested in SGML compatibility? The spec says: for compatibility A feature of XML included solely to ensure that XML remains compatible with SGML. "For compatibility" is just an explanation of the requirement. You'll notice that all the "for compatibility" comments are associated with "must" or similar wording. So a conforming processor must indicate an error if it encounters -- in a comment. Contrast this with "for interoperability", which does not impose any requirement. This term is used in conjunction with "should" or "may" rather than "must", though I notice that in Section 3.1 it is used with "must", which seems like an error in the standard to me. -- Richard xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|