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

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

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>,"xml-dev@lists.xml.org" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:49:17 -0800

At 10:31 AM 10/11/00 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

>And maybe if that takes off, we can have Canonical XML parsers which only
>read Canonical XML.

Wow... Canonical XML is pretty easy to generate, but I'd think
that enforcing all those constraints would be a lot of work,
i.e. probably more than parsing ordinary XML. -Tim

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
  - From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>

References:
- Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
  - From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@idoox.com>
- Pull-based XML parsers?
  - From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>
- Re: Pull-based XML parsers?
  - From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@geotempo.com>
- Re: Pull-based XML parsers?
  - From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
  - From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>

Prev by Date: Re: xslt
Next by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
Previous by thread: Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
Next by thread: Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread