Word and XML (was: XML standards coherency and so forth)

[Robin Cover]

John Cowan wrote:

>>         <P>This is <B>a test <I>of the</B> emergency</I> broadcast
>> system</P>

> 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
example:

'URL's of the kind:

  <a href="http://foo.bar.com/search?&status=clear&PageCall=1&mode=on">

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?

-rcc


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;
(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)