On 14/07/18 02:15, Liam R. E. Quin wrote:
[snip]
> So, XML leaves out a lot, and some of it is supplied by other specs
> (such as infoset) and some of it is deliberately omitted, and some of
> it was omitted by oversight. I don't think XML::Twig was wrong to
> offer unordered sequences of children (using a hash) as an option.
As an option, perhaps it indicates just how far apart the document
markup world and the programming world were (and remain).
I prefer Norman's original explanation.
///Peter
