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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



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

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
  • To: Seairth Jacobs <seairth@bbglobex.com>, xml-dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:53:26 -0600

Sure.  You have to prove them reliable in
accordance with the requirements of the
application environment.  Otherwise, the
cost bites when the snow melts.
Quality costs less in the long run.  Deciding
what quality *means* is the first problem
of picking a service to integrate into the
enterprise web.  If I have to choose between
100% compliant processor used by millions
and therefore, with very high reliability
numbers, and is *free* versus choosing
one with limited functionality, a smaller
footprint, lower reliability numbers,
and some recurring costs,  
the meaning of quality is obvious even
if it only snows occasionally here in hell.

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto: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.


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

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