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

Revisiting the original XML deliberations - was Re: Postel's l


postel xml

On Jan 16, 2004, at 5:17 PM, jcowan@r... wrote:

>> 	Given the desperate need to ensure that documents that
>> describe potentially high-priced financial instruments are correct in
>> their content, why doesn't it make more sense for you to kick back the
>> badly formed documents to their source and ask for clean versions?
>
> One reason is the existence of a settlement process.  It's cheaper, 
> quite
> often, to assume all is well, watch for exceptions further down, and 
> correct
> them by hand.

A recent nuke in the Atomic war :-) over  this issue in the Atom 
community linked to the W3C SGML WG thread where this issue was 
apparently aired for the first time back in early 1997.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1997Apr/0164.html began 
it all, apparently.

One post I found particularly intriguing in hindsight was from Paul 
Prescod
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1997May/0074.html

"Browsers do not just need a well-formed
XML document. They need a well-formed XML document with a stylesheet
in a known location that is syntactically correct and *semantically
correct* (actually applies reasonable styles to the elements so that
the document can be read). They need valid hyperlinks to valid targets
.... There is still so much room for a document author to screw up that
well-formedness is a very minor step down the path. The idea that
well-formedness-or-die will create a "culture of quality" on the Web
is totally bogus. People will become extremely anal about their
well-formedness and transfer their laziness to some other part of the
system.

I' m not at all sure that the 2004 edition of Paul Prescod would agree, 
but the idea that well-formedness is a particularly useful indication 
that a document is "correct in content" seems a bit, well "bogus".  
There's a lot to more "validity" in the real-world sense of the word 
than well-formedness or even validity against an XML schema, even in 
something as simple as a typical Web document let alone a business 
document with legal and financial ramifications. Most likely, some 
"settlement process" is needed for a wide range of errors, and 
well-formedness is just the most easily detected.

I do think we in the XML world need to be careful not to overstate the 
benefits of well-formedness even if we do insist that it is intrinsic 
to the formal definition of what "XML" means.  One could of course 
argue that it is an indicator of non-"laziness".  Is there much 
evidence to support this?  Does a working knowledge of the corner cases 
in the XML spec (or the ability to choose software that handles them 
properly) really correlate with overall document quality/validity, in 
people's experience?



"


PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.