Re: Principles of XML design
On May 7, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote: > Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote: > >> If you define what a conformant XML processor *is*, I might agree >> with you. If I have a processor that understand the grammar of >> well-formed XML, but emits a boolean value (parsed or not), is that a >> conformant processor? > > That's a very good question. In practice, I find it more useful to > talk about a conformant SAX processor, DOM processor, etc. That's actually the crux of my argument: it is of more practical value to talk about conformance at this level because this is where differences will/could arise. Again, depending on the application domain, and how they treat the data, applications will have different data requirements. Entities... most processing requires little or no knowledge of entity boundaries, but there are many cases where the knowledge is not just necessary, but vital. Who decides if they're important? How about CDATA boundaries? How about PI's? Ultimately it is the processor that decides. > Does this same SGML spec place any other requirements on SGML and by > extension XML processors? In particular does it mandate anything that > an SGML processor is expected to return to client applications? Do any > of the SGML gurus on the list happen to know that? Not really... as people noted before, most of those requirements were add-ons.
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