Word and XML (was: XML standards coherency and so forth)
robin at isogen.com
Thu Jan 21 19:40:14 GMT 1999
John Cowan wrote:
>> <P>This is <B>a test <I>of the</B> emergency</I> broadcast
> Un*censored*believable. This not only isn't XML, it isn't even
> HTML. What were they thinking of? [. . .]
I agree that this is bad. Unfortunately, a lot of companies
(and some that really *do* know better) are still creating and
selling products that generate invalid HTML (SGML). For one
'URL's of the kind:
viz., unescaped ampersand in attribute values, which is simply
illegal. So long as software companies across the board will
tolerate an attitude of "close is good enough" - what should we expect?
Come to think of it: why should this be "Un*censored*believable"
given that 99% of Net stuff is illegal HTML, despite a couple
generations (years) of HTML DTDs?
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