XML errors and fatal errors.

[John Cowan]

Richard Tobin wrote:
> 
> > I find also the following 20 kinds of non-fatal errors:
> 
> Many of these are violations of the grammar, hence making the document
> not well-formed (because it doesn't match the production "document").

Yeah, it's ugly.  The claim that a document is WF if it conforms
to the production "document" appears in clause 2.1 and is repeated
in clause 4.3.2, but is not as such a WFC, and clause 1.2 claims
only that violations of WFCs are said to be errors.  So technically a
document like

	<foo

though not WF, is not "in error", since neither "error" nor "must"
is anywhere applied to what is wrong with it.

-- 
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)