Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Rick JELLIFFE <email@example.com>
- To: ",Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:18:22 +0800
Jeff Lowery wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any pull-based XML parsers other than kxml?
It is interesting that the dangers of Common XML can be seen from this:
rather than a guide for what parts of XML Simon thinks are most
"frequently used (implemented) and reliable" for document and language
creators, it is being used to decide what bits of XML a parser
implementer can pick and choose.
The Common XML document is very clear about this danger " It is not a
set of rules for creating parsers or other software."
Of course, there is no harm in people making experimental and academic
XML parsers to test ideas, and starting with a common subset is a good
idea too. And there is no harm in making a true subset XML parser that
developers can use in specific systems (XML is a subset of SGML, why
should there not be subsets of XML?) And Simon's Common XML should be
required reading for anyone trying to understand how things fit
But I urge developers to boycott any XML parsers that do not attempt to
provide full support for XML 1.0, in any general-purpose development.
If you use them, *you* are creating interoperability problems, not the
people who use XML 1.0 in their documents. Perhaps the kxml people
might put in a paragraph in their documentation warning against using
their system in general-purpose applications too.