Non-Validating XML Parsers: Requirements
cowan at locke.ccil.org
Mon Aug 3 21:43:18 BST 1998
Michael Kay wrote:
> I don't know offhand what RFC 2119 says on the matter, and I
> haven't got time to look, but any set of rules that includes
> the term "may not" is liable to be misinterpreted by half
> its audience. When I am reviewing specifications, "may not"
> always gets a thumbs down.
*sigh* I do wish people wouldn't review things without reading
them. I happen to agree with you about MAY NOT, but that's
what RFC 2119 says. The RFC is about 600 words long, BTW, and
here's a link: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2119.txt .
> I don't much like "may" either. Everything is permitted
> unless the specification prohibits it, a sentence whose main
> verb is "may" therefore says nothing.
*Everything*? So if a specification for a C compiler doesn't
*say* that compiling a strictly conforming program does *not*
make demons fly out of your nose, then the compiler is allowed
to do that?
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev