Non-Validating XML Parsers: Requirements

[John Cowan]

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;
(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)