Richard Tobin wrote:
> To invent a document format in which the order of
> attributes is significant and then claim that it conforms to XML would
> be misleading to say the least, since it would not be interoperable with
> the majority of XML tools (which don't preserve attribute order).
>
> You can of course construct even more egregious examples, such as a
> format in which data is encoded by the number of spaces between
> attributes. That isn't XML.
Which begs the question: if XML is not what is described in the XML
specification (any edition of any version, refined and/or complemented
by any other specification), then what /is/ XML?
--
Robin Berjon
Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
