Feeling good about SML

[Sean Mc Grath]

>At 11:54 AM 11/16/99 +0000, Sean Mc Grath wrote:
>>I see this as nothing more than codifying existing
>>practice. There are lots of parsers that claim
>>to be XML parsers but when you look closely they
>>don't do X,Y and Z per the specification.
>
[Tim Bray]
>Is that really true?

I believe it is true but I would be delighted to
be wrong.

Does anyone knowledgeable in the minutia
of XML compliance care to list the extant
parsers and put them into fully XML 1.0
compliant and non-XML 1.0 compliant camps?

The next step would be to segregate the
XML 1.0 compliant parsers along the 
lines of things they do that are
"optional" per the spec. that cause
interoperability problems.

regards,

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<p>
This document has three
erors.
/p>


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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe 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)