|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easierto aut
Tim Bray wrote: > >... > > Well, I routinely use perl regexps to process great big XML instances, > when those instances have been generated by machine. There is no good > reason at this point to introduce more complexity to XML parsing. -Tim If the instances are generated under your control by a machine, then by definition they won't use the short-tag feature if your regexps don't support it. The complexity argument also does not wash: entities and CDATA sections easily add the most complexity to XML of any feature. If you are going to use regexps on arbitrary XML that you do not control then you need to normalize away entities, CDATA sections and probably newlines in tags. Adding short-tags to that list of things is not going to change the complexity of your system one whit. The additional complexity in parsing boils down to an extra question-mark in the grammar. The one thing that strikes a cord with me is the phrase "at this point". It's too late to make changes to XML. Paul Prescod
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








