Re: A simple guy with a simple problem
At 04:00 PM 3/15/01 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote: >Right, and so we define 'equivalence' between two documents as >operationally: > >1) parsing two documents produces the same SAX events >2) parsing two documents produces an equivalent DOM object > >(that's the simple way of saying that these two documents have the same >infoset) Except that isn't always good enough, for regulatory reasons if nothing else. (Just as it isn't wise to throw away original faxes and order forms when the data's in the computer.) Remember, there are still people who don't find post-parse infosets to be a complete enough answer. >ok, so the point about validating vs. nonvalidating parsers is a good one >and so just tell Bob that if he accepts XML documents from external sources >with DOCTYPE definitions, then be sure to use a validating XML parser (or at >least one that handles external entities). A validating parser won't work when he has to deal with docs with no DTD. The non-validating that handles entities may be useful, so long as he wasn't planning to slap on a DOCTYPE (per my DOCTYPEChanger) and validate that way - the possibilities of internal subsets get creative and weird. I guess this keeps my book-writing gig in business - XML Elements of Style goes into detail on these issues - but I can't say these are the reasons I want people buying books. >no fancy wrench needed. Too much understanding needed, though, for too little gain. Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
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