[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Re: Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: her

• To: pdurusau@e...
• Subject: Re: Re: Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:13:35 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: jeni@j... (Jeni Tennison), xml-dev@l... (XML DEV)
• In-reply-to: <3DA19A18.1030508@e...> from "Patrick Durusau" at Oct 07, 2002 10:28:40 AM

Patrick Durusau scripsit:

> As an alternative, for a "lite" searching interface to a dictionary, you 
> only want: <entry><headWord>JITTs</headWord>(blob of unparsed PCDATA, 
> which includes all the markup you got as nodes in the DOM tree in the 
> first one)</entry>

Your postings and your paper seem to disagree about this "blob of unparsed
PCDATA".  In the paper, you say that markup that's not wanted in the current
processing model is ignored, rather than being converted to PCDATA.  Also,
presumably entity and character references, DOCTYPE declarations, and CDATA
sections are recognized in all models?

-- 
John Cowan       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        <jcowan@r...>
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

• References:
  • Re: Re: Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
    • From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@e...>

• Prev by Date: LMNL Pull
• Next by Date: white spaces before prolog . can i work aroung it
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread