Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other name.
greynolds at datalogics.com
Fri Oct 30 19:41:54 GMT 1998
I would agree we shouldn't be too harsh on the standard as written; the
W3C intentionally does things fast, which is good on the whole, but it
means pragmatism wins out over aesthetics sometimes. But I also agree
using Z would be a very big step forward.
From: david at megginson.com [mailto:david at megginson.com]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 12:58 PM
To: XML Dev
Subject: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other
Michael Kay writes:
> This whole thread just reconfirms my view, stated a couple of weeks
> ago, that the current spec is hopelessly informal and we need some
> PhD student to sit down and produce a version in Z or something
That's probably too harsh. I am actually quite fond of the XML 1.0
REC, and believe that it has worked for the most part.
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