[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? ]

• From: Mike Brown <mbrown@c...>
• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:28:36 -0700

John Cowan wrote:
> Ronald Bourret wrote:
> >    <A><[CDATA[ < ]]></A>
> > 
> > becomes:
> > 
> >    <A> < </A>
> 
> Nope, Canonical XML is fully parsable XML: in this case it would be:
> 
> 	<A> &amp; </A>

Now that's quite a transformation! :)

   - Mike
____________________________________________________________________
Mike J. Brown, software engineer at         My XML/XSL resources:
webb.net in Denver, Colorado, USA           http://www.skew.org/xml/

• Prev by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• Previous by thread: ANNOUNCE: XML Spy 3.5 Beta 1 available for download
• Next by thread: Topic (Verity) and XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread