[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.

• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:58:25 -0800

> What was very noticeable from the early and crappy way that many
> applications did not support xml:lang properly,

or encodings...

> It would not be solved by reducing the spec: if you just have
> elements, data and comments someone would immediately try to get rid of
> comments. 

Yes, the 80% (this is good enough for now) philosophy applies to
*any* standard. The only thing I can think of that *might* alleviate
some of the problems would be using ASN for the specs...

Again, XML conformance, for a relatively young standard is generally
*excellent*. The fact that XML parsers are a commodity* (thereby
meaning that many people use the same parser), means that interoperability
is even better than one might otherwise get.

----
* I should note that Tim was one of the folk that very accurately predicted
that the parsing technology would rapidly become a non-issue in terms
of implementation.

• References:
  • Re: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Next by Date: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Previous by thread: Re: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Next by thread: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread