On 13 December 2010 16:35, Amelia A Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > How do I tell whether it's safe to use my uXML parser instead of my > (heavier) XML 1.0 + Namespace in XML + XML:Base + XML:ID + whatever > parser?" How important a use case is this, really? Isn't the main use case to facilitate writing XML such that even the simplest tools and parsers can handle it properly. It would be a huge shame if the stumbling block were that for the more complex tools to handle it you have to add to the complexity of the XML with the risk of breaking your primary use case, making it less likely that the most modest tools can handle the XML properly. I'm not much in favor of requiring any *additions* to a micro XML (uXML??) at all: Making such an addition just so that browsers can handle it better (with the risk of browsers still ignoring it or still not being able to handle it due to HTML5 rules, etc) or making any addition so that more powerful tools can handle it better seems to contradict the main purpose. It would be ironic if a tool cannot handle the XML because it is *too* simple. That tool might have to be declared outside of the scope of the problem. There must be all the more tools which cannot handle XML when it is too complex and it is surely to help XML authors write their XML for these which is the main purpose. ---- Stephen D Green
[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