weak validation

[Ann Navarro]

At 11:55 AM 8/30/99 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

>>'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?

Part of the problem here is what is and what isn't confidential discussions
in a WG. If this were a W3C-internal list, I could be more forthcoming, but
as I said earlier, I tend to err on the side of caution there. 

As for XHTML 1.0 -- being a reformulation of HTML 4.0 into XML, the black
and white valid or not stance remained. 

As to future work.....I can only comment on public drafts. 

Ann
---

Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials
Coming in September --- Mastering XML

Founder, WebGeek Communications            http://www.webgeek.com
Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org
Director, HWG Online Education             http://www.hwg.org/services/classes





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)