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

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Ronald Bourret wrote:

> I don't think you can do quite that -- canonical XML is a post-parse
> form. For example, if you replace CDATA sections with their data, then
> the document:
> 
>    <A><[CDATA[ < ]]></A>
> 
> becomes:
> 
>    <A> < </A>
> 
> which is not suitable for sending to somebody -- they'll get an error
> parsing it.

Nope, Canonical XML is fully parsable XML: in this case it would be:

	<A> &amp; </A>

-- 
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