weak validation

[Simon St.Laurent]

At 11:38 AM 8/30/99 -0400, Ann Navarro wrote (Re: why distinctions within
XHTML?):
>At 11:18 AM 8/30/99 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>Maybe it's time to reexamine the valid/not-valid distinction we get out of
>>the XML 1.0 spec and start looking at more sophisticated 'weak validation'
>>like Rick Jelliffe's discussed.
>
>'weak validation' or 'weak conformance' has been discussed at length, and
>found to be a very, very bad idea. 

I find answers like this hazardous.  'has been discussed at length' by who?
 The usual band of folks who who have used SGML for the decade or more?  Or
by developers looking for a way to use schemas without binding themselves
into a straitjacket?

Probably the best thing I got out of the Montreal XML Developer Days
conference this year was that binding ourselves into straitjackets isn't
always the right idea, even if tradition and perhaps intuition suggest
otherwise.

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer (2nd Ed - September)
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
http://www.simonstl.com

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)