Comments on: Lawyers shouldn’t edit XML documents http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/2005/09/22/1383_lawyers_shouldnt_edit_xml_documents/ XML, apiculture et prĂ©-vergers Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:46:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Eric van der Vlist http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/2005/09/22/1383_lawyers_shouldnt_edit_xml_documents/#comment-27 Eric van der Vlist Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/?p=41#comment-27 Hmmm... Which processing instruction do you mean? Technically speaking, <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> isn't considered as a PI but as a XML declaration and it's not only allowed in a DTD but also considered a good practice. The error is the comment which is forbidden before the XML declaration in both XML documents and DTDs... Hmmm… Which processing instruction do you mean?

Technically speaking, <?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”UTF-8″?> isn’t considered as a PI but as a XML declaration and it’s not only allowed in a DTD but also considered a good practice.

The error is the comment which is forbidden before the XML declaration in both XML documents and DTDs…

]]> By: Alex Blewitt http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/2005/09/22/1383_lawyers_shouldnt_edit_xml_documents/#comment-28 Alex Blewitt Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/?p=41#comment-28 A DTD isn't a valid XML document. The problem is that it includes the XML processing instruction when it shouldn't. Apart from anything else, an XML document must contain a single well-formed root element, which is not present in a DTD. Additionally, none of the declarations are valid XML content. A DTD isn’t a valid XML document. The problem is that it includes the XML processing instruction when it shouldn’t.

Apart from anything else, an XML document must contain a single well-formed root element, which is not present in a DTD. Additionally, none of the declarations are valid XML content.

]]> By: len http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/2005/09/22/1383_lawyers_shouldnt_edit_xml_documents/#comment-29 len Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/?p=41#comment-29 But that lawyer was fanatical about validation and knew better than introducing a feature for well-formedness that would fail the stupid test: every introduction of a feature to support well-formedness, such as the optional prolog, tends to fail the stupid test. So maybe stupid people shouldn't edit XML. But that lawyer was fanatical about validation and knew better than introducing a feature for well-formedness that would fail the stupid test: every introduction of a feature to support well-formedness, such as the optional prolog, tends to fail the stupid test.

So maybe stupid people shouldn’t edit XML.

]]> By: Eric van der Vlist http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/2005/09/22/1383_lawyers_shouldnt_edit_xml_documents/#comment-30 Eric van der Vlist Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/?p=41#comment-30 John, that might be the reason! John, that might be the reason!

]]> By: John Cowan http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/2005/09/22/1383_lawyers_shouldnt_edit_xml_documents/#comment-31 John Cowan Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/?p=41#comment-31 Then again, SGML was invented by a lawyer. Then again, SGML was invented by a lawyer.

]]>