Re: Principles of XML design
On May 6, 2005, at 3:45 PM, Chris Burdess wrote: > XML *is* the syntax. The API is something else - DOM, for instance. That's what I was saying. > If people want to preserve the original stream of bytes, they can do > so by preserving the original stream of bytes. No XML processor is > required to report things like whitespace in tags, whitespace in the > prolog or following the root element closing tag, the UTF-16 byte > order mark, whether attributes are delimited by apostrophes or quotes, > whether ampersands are encoded as & or & or &. All of > these issues have been discussed to death in XML Canonicalization. Same point... > Not at all. The spec says the order of attributes is not significant. > Whether one processor or another chooses to believe that it is > significant is irrelevant. Building an expectation of such behaviour > will simply leave your users confused and unhappy when they start > using another, conformant XML processor without that behaviour and > their application is broken. 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? The point is that the processing is domain-specific, and hence, so are the processors... different requirements force different notions of "conformant"...
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