[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The waterfall model lives? (was Re: Thesubsettin
[Mike Champion > So what if XML were "refactored" so that the bare-bones well-formed syntax > (and/or data model, that's another issue!) were the common core, and DTD > processing were at the next layer up? I agree that this would be a good approach to refactoring XML and it is hinted at in the XML 1.0 Rec by its use of "standalone". Whatever would be the point of defining it except to allow a profile for a stand-alone document. It is not much of a step to get to a category of parser labeled as "standalone". In fact, most people probably follow this route when they create little embedded parsers, for example, in javascript before IE and Mozilla had accessible parsing capabilities. The progression tends to go something like this, I think - 1) Parse angle brackets only. Enforce basic (i.e., non-dtd, non-encoding issues) well-formedness. Use whatever character encoding the platform gives you. Ignore DTDs. Maybe handle character references. 2) Handle comments. Handle character references if not already handled. 3) Pick up (non-parameter) entities in the internal subset. Normalize attribute whitespace if not already handled. Maybe handle default values. Maybe handle PIs. 4) Discover encoding problems with new source of input data, agonize over it, finally break down and try to handle encodings with whatever built-in capabilities the language supplies. The progression probably is driven by trying to use the processor for more and more input sources because it is convenient to use. Refactoring Mike's way would fit into this kind of progression nicely. Cheers, Tom P
|
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
|