Namespaces and XML validation

John E. Simpson simpson at
Tue Aug 11 00:03:38 BST 1998

At 03:13 PM 8/10/98 -0700, Lisa Rein wrote:
>peter murray rust wrote:
>> As I have often
>> (probably boringly) said, I think my community is far more interested in
>> semantic than syntactic validity. (Actually they probably don't care about
>> either much...)
>How can you possibly have one without the other?  If your syntax is
>bogus -- you won't get far with semantics.  How can you?  

Don't want to put words in his mouth, or his keyboard, but I think Peter's
point was that his community -- chemists -- don't give a hoot whether
>start< or <start> are valid XML tags; all they care about is that (using
this example) some provision is made for "starting." Peter himself seems to
have a fine grasp of the interdependence between semantics and syntax.

John E. Simpson          | It's no disgrace t'be poor,
simpson at      | but it might as well be.
                         |            -- "Kin" Hubbard

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

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list