"Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "John Bokma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> "Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> "John Bokma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>>> 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? -- John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/ Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/ I ploink googlegroups.com :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list