[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Bxml=2Ddev=5D_Should_XML_applications_follow_Postel?==
So all that means is that Postel's law can confict with Goal 6? Who says is should not? Just another tradeoff, surely? Still not very convinced, sorry. If someone at the other end does not implement reading PIs, why cannot you use the same logic that they may have omitted to implement some elements, and therefore you should avoid using elements as much as possible too? Or does the principle apply to optional elements: that for robustness we should avoid generating elements or attributes that are optional in the schema (and PIs, if they are optional in that situtation too)? I don't think that counts as robustness, unless perhaps you have duplicate elements (think of MARC library format) from successive generations of aggregation of prior standards. Surely the kind of readable you are talking about is determined by the language skills of the developers, not the language of the text of the document?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|