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