Editing text

[James Clark]

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> But in the case of XML, we
> can have our cake (the fans of strict, codified naming rules can exactly
> specify what is allowed) *AND* eat it (bewildered parser-writers can just
> use simple tokenizing).

Not if they want to be conforming.  All conforming XML processors are
required to detect well-formedness errrors.  If a XML document uses a
character in a name that is not allowed, the document is not well-formed
and every conforming XML parser is required to report it and is required
not to process the document.

I think it would be better if well-formedness allowed simple tokenizing
to be used, and the detailed checking of name characters was needed only
for validity, but that's not how the spec is currently.

James



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)