Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[John Bokma]

"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> "John Bokma" <john at castleamber.com> wrote in message 
> news:Xns96F2A7259B695castleamber at 130.133.1.4...
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Bokma" <john at castleamber.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns96F1E4E128EA8castleamber at 130.133.1.4...
>>
>>>> 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 :-)