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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



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

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
  • To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:43:29 +0100

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> At 04:18 PM 11/10/00 +0100, Miloslav Nic wrote:
> >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
> >problems
> And maybe if that takes off, we can have Canonical XML parsers which only
> read Canonical XML.
> Thoughts?

I am afraid so ;)

I see canonical XML as biased by the application and I don't think there
can really be a single canonical XML...

The current one is written by the XML Signature WG and its main purpose
is allow to check if the content of a XML document (in a meaning of XML
Infoset) has been modified.

I think that the limitations mentioned in the spec [1] explain clearly
that it's not a "universal" canonical XML and that there might be a
canonical version of each single XML vocabulary.

BTW, it's showing already clearly in the name that has been chosen :
canonical rules are different for each church :) 


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xml-c14n-20001026#Limitations

> Simon St.Laurent
> XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
> XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
> http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com


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

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