Andy Dingley <dingbat@c...> wrote in message news:<gn4aj0966f2ver9g2njdqge6b3a4frohvh@4...>...
> On 31 Aug 2004 12:52:28 -0700, esthermstrom@y... (Esther) wrote:
> 
> >Could someone please clarify for me if I'm missing one
> >of the finer points of XML, or are these people just idiots?
> 
> Hard to tell.  Is this even XML ?  If they're using SGML, then they
> _might_ get away with this.

Nope, it's supposed to be XML.

> 
> I'm loath to call them idiots (we haven't even been introduced, after
> all) but the worst part of this IMHO is their (all too common)
> treatment of an _example_ as a _specification_. This is just a very
> bad idea - examples only describe one single instance, not the whole
> problem domain. It's a good route to all sorts of obscure future
> problem, and a particular bugbear of mine.

I *have* been introduced, and it would not be the most inaccurate
name...

> 
> If you're specifiying the format of an XML document, use either a DTD
> or (better) a schema. If you can't do either, or don;t know why you
> ought to, then you might not be an idiot but you're certainly out of
> your depth.

I know why you should use DTD/schema, but as I said - I'm new to this
and hesitated to call them on it because I wasn't positive there
wasn't some advanced concept I was missing that would allow it.

Thanks all of you for your answers.