[RFC] SRS Section 2

Hui Zhou zhouhui at wam.umd.edu
Thu Feb 3 16:35:31 PST 2005

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:33:48PM +0000, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>You suggest me reading that l-e-n-g-t-h-y spec again! :-{
>No, just the definitions you can find at the start of each and every w3 
>spec.  See http://w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210#sec-well-formed and 

Thanks:), you see, it refers to document, then element, then ...

But I see what you are talking about.
>>>What do you propose the server do with a tag like "<bankaccount>" or 
>>>"<banana>" for example?  
>Silently?  Going back to your previous example of a C compiler, how 
>useful would it be if you gave the compiler invalid C code and it 
>silently ignored those lines of code?  I'm not talking about code that 
>is syntactically valid but contains logic-errors or other classes of 
>bugs, I'm talking about stuff like a missing ';'.

I thought you meant extra use defined tags that not specified in dtd, 
which I believe the official behavior is to ignore. Look back at your 
example of <banana>, I still think it conveys this understanding.
>>Is that your philosophy? I spoke some chinese to you and you don't 
>>understand and you just stand there "bail out"?
>No, I'd tell you "I don't understand what you're saying, could you speak 
>English please".  Much like the server should say "I don't understand 
>the data you gave me, please give me [ALFS structured data format] instead."

It meant to be a joke:). But in the joke, your whole life <=> alfs, 
all the people <=> profile input, I speak chinese <=> feed in 
<banana>, and bail out <=> stop living. :) no offense. I meant it was 
a joke. I get ignored from time to time, I just assume the one I talk 
to couldn't understand what I said, and be fine. But I do like your 
way better. In this case, I would speak english to you if I know how 
to. Anyway, the joke was based on a misunderstood assumption.
>>Say under download tag is a invalid url, does that mean the server 
>>should not bail out because it is been validated.
>I, see, this is where you *might* be misunderstanding.  When we say 
>"validate" we're talking *only* about the structure/syntax of the data, 
>not its content.  i.e. we can check that for each package we want to 
>build there is a <download> tag and that each "download" tag has a "url" 
>element.  However, once we've got that far, *XML validation* goes no 

Yeah, I realized. Don't reply to this post. I will make another reply 
discuss it.


Hui Zhou

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list