Re: choosing sides
Hi, Chris On 12/13/2010 4:06 AM, Chris Burdess wrote: > Michael Sokolov wrote: >>> Do you think there is enough in your proposal to make, for example, >>> some of the major players, build a parser and other tools to support >>> it Michael? >>> >> Good question, Dave - I guess my thought that was smaller change would be *easier* to get implemented, but perhaps that is naive: ho-humness could doom it. One thing I like about this incremental approach though is that much of the benefit can be realized *only* with a new parser. I know a parser is complicated, but with some of the complexity removed, it would actually be much simpler to create a new one. > However, I don't see anything in your proposal that reduces complexity. More features and "looser" interpretation of the data makes parsers more complicated, not less. Admitted - new features require some new work in the parser. But actually my main concern re: simplicity is to simplify life for document creators, then document app developers, and only lastly parser developers. I mostly meant that removing DOCTYPE would make the parser vastly simpler. Some other things would complicate it, but those are (mostly) meant in the spirit of making it easier to work with the parser, not on it. -Mike
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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