xml-dev - Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.

[Seairth Jacobs <seairth@bbglobex.com>]

Heh.  alarmist.

 

I am not saying that everyone should write their own parser.  What I am saying is that it is fine to use any parser that fits your needs.  There are several parsers out there that are far from being proprietary but are also not necessarily 100% compatible with the XML specification.  I certainly agree that it's pointless to "re-invent the wheel", but at the same time I see no need in purchasing the all-weather model when your only dealing with snow.

 

---
Seairth Jacobs
seairth@bbglobex.com

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len)

To: Seairth Jacobs ; xml-dev

Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:10 PM

Subject: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.

I agree.  Very important.

 

Have you considered the costs of

maintaining your proprietary XML processor over

that of one tested by millions of other people?

Has your boss considered what it costs to recertify

the software that has to interface with your XML

processor every time you release it?  Has the

spike in certification costs from your bosses' department 

brought him up before the Cert review board?  Have 

his customers begun to complain about the problems 

of getting changes to the shared document type 

which your bosses' department maintains 

exclusively because changes to the type mean 

changes to your processor which means a 

new certification of your processor and all 

code dependent on it?

 

Have you polished your resume lately?

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@bbglobex.com]

In the end, deciding what subset of parser should be used for development is every bit as important as deciding what subset of XML should be used for DTD or Schema definition.