|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
Oops. I haven't read the spec and just glanced at the list in the previous email. Learning in public is so much fun... -- Ron John Cowan wrote: > > Ronald Bourret wrote: > > > I don't think you can do quite that -- canonical XML is a post-parse > > form. For example, if you replace CDATA sections with their data, then > > the document: > > > > <A><[CDATA[ < ]]></A> > > > > becomes: > > > > <A> < </A> > > > > which is not suitable for sending to somebody -- they'll get an error > > parsing it. > > Nope, Canonical XML is fully parsable XML: in this case it would be: > > <A> & </A> > > -- > There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> > no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com > to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein -- Ronald Bourret Programming, Writing, and Training XML, Databases, and Schemas http://www.rpbourret.com
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








