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

[Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@rpbourret.com>]

Oops. I haven't read the spec and just glanced at the list in the
previous email. Learning in public is so much fun...

-- Ron

John Cowan wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Ronald Bourret
Programming, Writing, and Training
XML, Databases, and Schemas
http://www.rpbourret.com