Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedsp
 At 08:43 PM 9/24/2001 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >It is a natural tendency to, when we find that our document type does not >need certain features, to want to remove them from the information set >or from what the parser recognises. I don't see anything wrong with >a parser implementing only the markup recognition that a particular >application needs, as long as it keeps the layering clear: that it rejects, >say, attributes not because of an XML error but because of an early-caught >validity error. That's very, uh, SGML of you Rick. It doesn't however, seem to fit very well with the ideas which animated XML 1.0 in the first place. I'd suggest that the notion of a generic parser which can be used in any application, as well as the notion of generic syntax which can be parsed by any of those generic parsers is an important part of what defines "XML" as a set of practices and seems pretty tightly built into the XML 1.0 specification. Even the 'separatist' Simplified Markup Language movement seemed to preserve the notion of generic parsers, albeit for an even simpler set of markup tools than XML. On the other hand, may it would make some people happy to declare SOAP an SGML Protocol, and then that annoying "Simple" on the front of it could mean "SGML". Simon St.Laurent Associate Editor O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
