OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



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

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@idoox.com>
  • To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>,"xml-dev@lists.xml.org" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:18:56 +0100

I am really scared to have XML PDA only, XML Web TV,  
Refrigiator XML, ....

But I can imagine that there can be very severe implementation 
problems with small devices.

What about this:

If there are some problems just state:

our device requires canonical XML:

This Candidate Recommendation says:

The canonical form of an XML document is physical representation of the
document produced by the method described in this specification. The
changes are  summarized in the following list:

The document is encoded in UTF-8 
Line breaks normalized to #xA on input, before parsing 
Attribute values are normalized, as if by a validating processor 
Character and parsed entity references are replaced 
CDATA sections are replaced with their character content 
The XML declaration and document type declaration (DTD) are removed 
Empty elements are converted to start-end tag pairs 
Whitespace outside of the document element and within start and end tags
are normalized 
All whitespace in character content is retained (excluding characters
removed during linefeed normalization) 
Attribute value delimiters are set to double quotes 
Special characters in attribute values and character content are
replaced by by character references 
Superfluous namespace declarations are removed from each element 
Default attributes are added to each element 
Lexicographic order is imposed on the namespace declarations and
attributes of each element 

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

John Cowan wrote:
> Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
> > 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.
> I think you are overlooking the following sentence from the documentation:
>         [kXML] is intended for restricted environments
>         like the PDAs or embedded systems.
> --
> There is / one art                   || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
> no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
> to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein

<firstName> Miloslav </firstName>    
<surname>   Nic      </surname>     

<mail>    nicmila@idoox.com    </mail>   
<support> http://www.zvon.org  </support>


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS