"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] >>> "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?
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? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
