Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:07:40 +0000 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
William F. Hammond writes:
> So may I conclude that Sebastian now realizes that my comment this past
> Friday was "right"? :-)
you dont catch me out like that.
> : and no HTML browser enforces validation, does it?
>
> That's also a web rule. Authors and servers should behave according
> to strict rules. Clients should be very tolerant. (And indeed clients
> need to be very tolerant.)
XML clients will be intolerant. they must be, by the "rules of
XML". invalid XML documents will be _rejected_ by eg Netscape 5
> In fact, the prevalence of invalid html gives one pause in
> contemplating the future of roll-your-own xml, where documents that
> are not valid will splatter across one's screen.
no. definitely not. all agree that unless the XML is well-formed, it
will not make it onto your screen
> : by which we see why LaTeX is unpopular in production workflows. that
> : translates to "10% failure"
>
> Hmmm... I believe that the head editor of a math journal that I know
> would disagree with this last statement about LaTeX. I think that he
mathematicians are, we know, a special case
sebastian
|
|
|