Amen to that. I think I'll win this battle, but I was put in a position where if there was a valid approach to handling this and I didn't use it it would come back to get me.
-----Original Message----- From: Arnaud Le Hors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 3:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sorry 'nother dumb question I understand that in some cases engineers are put in a position where they have no choice. They're being asked to do something and it's either they do it or they get blamed. But before you experiment with various ways of coping with the broken XML you're being given to process you ought to fight it. Tell the producers their XML is broken. There is a good reason for the spec not to allow dealing with broken XML. It's important that people understand that you're not actually helping by putting some work around into your code, because you're introducing some uncertainty into the processing of the information that may very easily lead to misinterpretation. It is usually easy and far better to get the source fixed in the first place. Only as a very last resort you should consider dealing with the broken XML anyway. And even then, you should only consider it as a temporary patch and keep working on addressing the real problem. -- Arnaud Le Hors - IBM, XML Standards Strategy Group / W3C AC Rep. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
