John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >> Are you not mixing syntax validation (well-formedness) with the more >> specific (ie, DTD) document validation (that blq _may_ have meant)? >> >> Not that DTD validation is always needed/desired, but when it is, the >> choice of xml would seem to be a no-brainer. > > That breaks the internet. > > % lynx -dump http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1122.txt | grep -B1 'nd"$' > "Be liberal in what you accept, and > conservative in what you send" >
Sure, one can argue about the role xml _should_ play in the internet, but that's a different topic -- isn't it? ;-) I was trying to say that, with xml, document markup validation is pretty well thought out and works pretty-well. I don't have any knowledge about consistency among various parser implementations, though. Anyone? Regards, ..jim -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
