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

Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch

• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>, XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:33:38 -0500
• In-reply-to: <oprk2ghnaeezizxn@s...>
• References: <a7.2ecd0d0e.2b8a809c@a...><20030223161005.Q16255@r...> <oprk2ghnaeezizxn@s...>

At 4:26 PM -0500 2/23/03, Mike Champion wrote:

>Are you (and Elliotte Harold?) saying that if the J2ME folks were to 
>change the spec and allow DOCTYPE declarations, but not implement 
>all the productions required to process an internal subset, then the 
>J2ME "XML" processor would be much more suitable even if it is not a 
>fully conformant XML 1.x implementation?

It might be some improvement (is it better to reject some well-formed 
documents or accept some malformed ones?)  but not enough. I'm not 
willing to settle for less than full conformance to the minimum level 
of XML 1.0.
-- 

+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
|           Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002)          |
|              http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava             |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA  |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/    |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by Date: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Previous by thread: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by thread: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread