[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: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:39:32 +0800

Sean McGrath wrote:

> Fact: interoperability with XML is not a no-brainer.
> Fact: Common XML is an honest attempt at making
> XML interoperability a no brainer.
> Fiction: Common XML is dangerous.

No-one has said Common XML (as a data format) is dangerous.
I said that developers should boycott parsers that call themselves
XML but only implement a subset except for specific-purpose systems:
so you it is fine to make a subset parser (e.g. for SOAP) and
say "this is a parser for a subset of XML" but it is not fine to
say "this is an XML parser".
 
> The *real *danger lies in burying ones head in the
> sand, pretending that interopability with XML is a done
> deal - even in a world of 100% compliant parsers.

Red herring. Are you saying that interoperability will be improved by
letting any arbitrary subset parser to say it is "XML"?  

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• 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