Simple XML conformance

Simon St.Laurent simonstl at
Mon Jan 17 20:22:29 GMT 2000

At 03:21 PM 1/17/00 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>Peter Murray-Rust scripsit:
>> 	- tool threw a fatal error because <!DOCTYPE was missing
>The XML Rec does not forbid a parser to treat validation errors as fatal.
>> 	- REC-xml and DOM specify DTD but spec.dtd is not mounted
>Non-validating parsers that read DTDs are entitled to get upset
>if the DTD cannot be read.
>> 	- several tools regard the absence of a DTD as a fatal error (i.e. they
>> appear to be validating by default).
>Again, that behvaior is not forbidden.

I don't think Peter's point is that these behaviors are forbidden, but
rather that they make interoperability difficult.  Perhaps a few more
things should have been forbidden. 

Peter wrote:
>Henry and I are obviously keen to show that XML is simple to use with the
>correct tools and that interoperability is achievable. 

I'd love to show that as well, but lately I seem to be writing books that
detail the possible pitfalls and suggest strategies for avoiding them
rather than claiming XML makes interoperability easy.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list