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

Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch

• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:26:01 -0500
• In-reply-to: <20030223161005.Q16255@r...>
• References: <a7.2ecd0d0e.2b8a809c@a...> <20030223161005.Q16255@r...>
• User-agent: Opera7.0/Win32 M2 build 2637

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:10:05 -0500, Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...> 
wrote:


> The kind of interop problem likely to happen due to J2ME decision
> is really orders of magnitude larger than the XML Namespace induced 
> subsetting, heck it won't even allow to parse correct XHTML which 
> requires the DOCTYPE presence,

Are you (and Elliotte Harold?) saying that if the J2ME folks were to change 
the spec and allow DOCTYPE declarations, but not implement all the 
productions required to process an internal subset, then the J2ME "XML" 
processor would be much more suitable even if it is not a fully conformant 
XML 1.x implementation?  I'll guess that they would find that a 
constructive suggestion.  It would seem to meet their needs for a minimal 
footprint while meeting the community's need to process "real" XML 
documents on J2ME environments.  They were worried about problems where 
failing to choke on DOCTYPE declarations would raise expectations that 
entities are declared, default attribute values set, and so on, but (on 
reflection, wearing my potential J2ME user hat) I would prefer that to 
rejecting all XHTML documents!

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Mike Kozlowski <mlk@k...>
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by Date: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Previous by thread: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by thread: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread