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

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

• From: Don Park <donpark@d...>
• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:17:50 -0800

1. I agree with boycotting of products which are intentionally
   misrepresented.

2. I prefer improving communication over boycotts (see
   http://www.cert.org).

3. I have not seen any instance of intentional misrepresentation
   in XML subset products.  Most of them are free open source
   products available made available for the good of XML community,
   so there are no incentives to intentionally misrepresent.

   Min, for example, is a MinML (Minimal-XML) parser and was
   described as such right from the start.

In my opinion, it is futile to encourage nor discourage activities
for the good of a community.  Let the nature run its course and see
what happens.

#2 above is the right measure for the problem at hand.  We already
have had some good articles (thanks to Dave Brownell and others)
that show conformance level of XML parser products that aims to be
fully compliant to the XML 1.0 spec.  It should not be very hard to
automate generation of such data and make it available on the Net.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>

• References:
  • RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
    • From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by Date: Re: xslt
• Previous by thread: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Next by thread: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread