Subject: RE: JavaScript From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:23:09 -0000 |
> However much I grumble that a comment is a comment and may be ignored. But as a pure mathematician, you ought to be looking at how the word is defined, and not at what it means in other contexts. The only thing XML says about comments is that the parser may or may not allow the application to see them. I've just had an exchange with Norman Walsh complaining that the AElfred parser (which I use by default) validates parameter entity references occurring within comments in the DTD. But as far as I can see, if you ignore preconceptions about the purpose of comments and just read the spec, that is exactly what an XML parser should do. But of course we're in this mess because all these specs actually rely very heavily on unstated assumptions about the meaning of words. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: JavaScript, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: JavaScript, David Carlisle |
Re: JavaScript, David Carlisle | Date | RE: JavaScript, Hunter, David |
Month |