Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
Someone wrote doubting that parsers that accept non-WF XML really exist, but we use a couple of them in our editor: we have to, to allow import, indenting, auto-correction and so on. For a paper on one of the approaches, "Editor's Concrete Syntax", see http://www.topologi.com/public/ECS.pdf Also, several years ago I wrote a C parser for a language STAX that did the same kind of minimization: the rationale being that compression might be too much processing for some uses. It is floating about somewhere too. This kind of thing is fine, as long as we don't call them XML parsers. Really, how much cost is it to skip PIs or over a DOCTYPE declaration in a parser? Just a handful of extra states or rows in a state table. I think it is fine for a profile to say "don't use comments" but another thing to write a parser in which comments break your parse: there are lots of legitimate reasons why you might want to continue to parse a bad document (error recovery, reporting, repair) but almost none for failing on a good document IMHO. Cheers Rick Jelliffe Topologi
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