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

Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]

• From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@i...>
• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>,"xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:28:55 +0100

I personaly want the same XML parsers everywhere
but if there is a real need for lightweight parsers (and it looks
like there is with devices with mediocre computing power, elsewhere it
is a very poor excuse not to implement or use conformant one) then 
it should be at least some format which will be readable by fully
conformant
parsers. 

I am more afraid of the fact that these devices will accept documents
which are not XML compatible and so general XML tools will be of no use.
Some sort of agreed on canonization
could be a viable compromise. 


Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> 
> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> >
> > At 04:18 PM 11/10/00 +0100, Miloslav Nic wrote:
> > >So I can use all XML features (as an author) and just before publishing
> > >push it through a "canonicator" if I want to be sure not to have some
> > >problems
> >
> > And maybe if that takes off, we can have Canonical XML parsers which only
> > read Canonical XML.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I am afraid so ;)
> 
> I see canonical XML as biased by the application and I don't think there
> can really be a single canonical XML...
> 
> The current one is written by the XML Signature WG and its main purpose
> is allow to check if the content of a XML document (in a meaning of XML
> Infoset) has been modified.
> 
> I think that the limitations mentioned in the spec [1] explain clearly
> that it's not a "universal" canonical XML and that there might be a
> canonical version of each single XML vocabulary.
> 
> BTW, it's showing already clearly in the name that has been chosen :
> canonical rules are different for each church :)
> 
> Eric
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xml-c14n-20001026#Limitations
> 
> > Simon St.Laurent
> > XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
> > XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
> > http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
> http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
******************************************
<firstName> Miloslav </firstName>    
<surname>   Nic      </surname>     

<mail>    nicmila@i...    </mail>   
<support> http://www.zvon.org  </support>
<zvonMailingList> 
    http://www.zvon.org/index.php?nav_id=4 
</zvonMailingList>

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>

• References:
  • Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
  • Re: Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
  • Re: Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: XML parser and XSL processor broker
• Next by Date: Re: User passed Arguments for Entities
• Previous by thread: Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Next by thread: RE: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread