[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Well-formed=Bad-karma? (was Re: Postel's law, exceptions)
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > One thing I noticed in several of the articles I read on this issue > from authors on both sides of the fence was a disturbing tendency to > confuse well-formedness with validity. I am firm in my belief that > well-formedness is a minimum criterion we should not compromise on. Vox pouli, vox dei. Why isn't it evidence that current WF goes too far, and that XML needs to be refactored to cope accordingly? People interested in this may care to see "Editor's Concrete Syntax" [1] for a reworking of well-formedness to retain XML's parseability but be more terse/forgiving. I think HTML would be much better reformulated in terms of ECS rather than XML, even if just as the on-ramp for XHTML. The i18n is the same, the parseability without needing to read a DTD is the same. ECS is pretty much what most colouring editors implement for XML or HTML, so I believe it reflects a common (and, what it more, good) grassroots practise already in widespread use. ECS could also be seen as an error-recovery strategy for some future non-Draconian XML, if the concept of WF is sacrosanct and inviolable. Cheers Rick Jelliffe [1] http://www.topologi.com/resources/pdfs/ECS.pdf
|
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
|