Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
Jeni Tennison wrote: > It's interesting how close you are to Walter Perry's position here > --that nothing matters aside from the output of your process, and that > the input can be anything at all; it's up to the processor to work out > what. I believe that I have been consistently a stickler for well-formedness in XML: my first exchange with Peter Murray-Rust on this list emphasized the importance I attach to well-formedness, though in that case by contrast with those who believed that something more than simple well-formedness was required for XML to be truly useful. That said, well-formedness checking is in the domain of the parser, and a parser of itself falls far short of the XML processor described in the Recommendation. Patrick Durusau can speak for himself, and may well disagree with my understanding, but in my opinion the JITTs processor operates downstream of XML parsing and of necessity has other inputs, and input assumptions, than the XML which a parser by itself processes. I build processors downstream from XML parsing in just this way and, yes, you are correct that for the inputs for which they are designed--and which they are specifically expert in handling--such processors must enjoy the autonomous authority to proceed on their own rules. It is only that whatever portion of their input is XML is subject to XML parsing, including the expected well-formedness checks, upon every use. Respectfully, Walter Perry
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