empty tags and the XMl 1.0 spec

[John Cowan]

Kay Michael wrote:

> Yes. Section 1.2, terminology, says that all sentences beginning with "For
> interoperability" can be safely ignored unless you are interested in getting
> your document through a piece of software that wasn't written to process
> XML.

I have already bitched to xml-editor at w3.org about the use of
"For interoperability" and "must" in the same sentence, suggesting
that "should" is the correct modal verb.  All other uses of "F.i."
use "should".

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan at ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

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)