Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Mike Schilling mscottschilling at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 18 07:33:13 CEST 2005


"John Bokma" <john at castleamber.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns96F2D562581CAcastleamber at 130.133.1.4...
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "John Bokma" <john at castleamber.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96F2A7259B695castleamber at 130.133.1.4...
>>> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John Bokma" <john at castleamber.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns96F1E4E128EA8castleamber at 130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>>>> Yup, but ISO C++ is a standard, and XML is a recommendation.
>>>>
>>>> And the practical difference between the two is....
>>>>
>>>> That's right, nil.
>>>
>>> If you both read them as a collection of words, you're right.
>>> However, as a
>>> (freelance) programmer, things like this *do* make a difference to
>>> me, and my customers.
>>
>> That is, you assume that files claiming to contain XML documents may
>> actually contain some variant of XML, because that's only a
>> recommendation, while files claiming to contain C++ are all
>> ISO-conformant, because that's a standard?
>>
>> If so, you've got things precisely backwards.  C++ compilers that
>> contain extensions or are not quite compliant are everywhere. XML
>> parsers that accept non-well-formed XML are, ASFAIK, non-existent.
>
> My goodness, re read that again please, and rethink what you really want
> to say. I mean "claiming to contain C++". Is that like: all files
> claiming to contain HTML are automatically conforming to the ISO HTML
> standard?

You haven't said why you thinbk "standards" are more valuable than 
"recommendations". We apparently both agree they're no more likely to be 
observed, so what is the reason? 





More information about the Python-list mailing list