[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)

• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:29:30 -0500 (EST)

Rob Lugt writes:

 > I agree it is not trivial to implement a full XML parser, but the experience
 > of a novice individual is irrelevant.
 > The Full XML 1.0 recommendation, complex as it is, does not appear to be
 > acting as a barrier to entry for serious tool vendors.

Actually, the full XML 1.0 rec didn't act as a barrier to entry for
individuals either.  Of the first five XML parsers I remember, four
were written by individuals (Norbert Mikula, Tim Bray, James Clark,
and me), but it was the one from the serious tool vendor (Microsoft)
that had serious conformance issues at first.  It took me only a few
evenings to have a usable beta version of AElfred -- most of the rest
of the time was spent optimizing performance and adding support for
extra character encodings.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

• References:
  • Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by Date: RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by thread: RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread