[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Classification: XML Parser Features
At 12:17 12/12/97 -0500, David Megginson wrote: >Tim Bray writes: [.. extremely important discussion deleted ...] I also (unfortunately) have sympathy with David's view that it's harder to write a conforming parser than appears on first reading. I agree that there are few if any fully conforming parsers at present. > > I'll stop here. I suggest you go back and re-work your > > (potentially helpful) list based on a re-reading of the > > specification. -Tim > >Thank you very much for your comments. I am grateful for the work >that you and the rest of the WG have done with the spec, and I hope >that you find my comments constructive rather than confrontational. > I am sure this is not a confrontational issue. I think David has made an excellent first pass at defining what we need to do. WG and SIG discussions (which David has not seen) are confidential, but it's clear from the relatively recent introduction of 'standalone' that this issue has been thought about. I do not believe this problem is solved yet. I have always felt that until we get working prototypes we shall not uncover all the difficult semantic problems. It is exactly now that they will start to appear with a 'stable' spec and a crop of new software. If you think 'no need to write a new parser, it's all been done' that's probably optimistic. The problem is that the semantics are very hidden and depend on what your background is. You may use SGML as a marker and it would be *logical* to design an XML parser to do exactly what an SGML one does. However, XML deliberately introduces flexibility into the spec, and in so doing introduces fuzziness. If anyone thinks this isn't a fuzzy area, state precisely what you think of David's classification (amended if necessary). Only if most of the 'XML experts' agree, can we say it isn't fuzzy. There will be worse fuzziness introduced if it isn't clear to 'non-XML-experts' what to do. IMO there are still areas of difficulty and different authors will introduce different 'features' - often without realising it. I suspect that a useful way forward will be to attach commandline options to parsers. They are already potentially required for 'may' clauses. Perhaps we should identify the areas where there are two schools of thought (e.g 'assume document is WF'/'check for WF error') and add a switch. Then the newcomers will understand that there is an area they have to think about. These may also help to clarify the drafters' minds if necessary. P. Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic net connection VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|