Re: A simple guy with a simple problem

[Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>]

Simon St.Laurent  wrote:


> At 04:00 PM 3/15/01 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >Right, and so we define 'equivalence' between two documents as
> >operationally:
> >
> >1) parsing two documents produces the same SAX events
> >2) parsing two documents produces an equivalent DOM object
> >
> >(that's the simple way of saying that these two documents have the same
> >infoset)
>
> Except that isn't always good enough, for regulatory reasons if nothing
> else.  (Just as it isn't wise to throw away original faxes and order forms
> when the data's in the computer.)  Remember, there are still people who
> don't find post-parse infosets to be a complete enough answer.

certainly you can keep the original document for records purposes. I mean
that the result of substituting "WHATEVER" with "whatever" ought not be
required to keep irrelevent stuff -- and if you need to keep track of
details such as whether an attribute value is single or double quoted or the
order of attributes, then you -need- an XML editor, not SAX. But this
requires you to admit you are on the 20 side of 80/20 (or 1 side of 99/1)

>
> I guess this keeps my book-writing gig in business - XML Elements of Style
> goes into detail on these issues - but I can't say these are the reasons I
> want people buying books.
>
> >no fancy wrench needed.
>
> Too much understanding needed, though, for too little gain.
>

Perhaps to -write- XML Elements of Style, but best practices stand on their
own. Just tell Simple Bob:

These are the 10 wrenches you need to construct -any- XML application. Leave
these 2 on the shelf and don't make anything that requires either of these
tools. You can use the other 8 to your heart's desire.

and, if you:

1) Buy a toy in the store that requires one of those 2 wrenches to
construct:

a) return it and ask for a toy you can build with any of your 8 wrenches
b) take the toy to Complex Sue and have her build it for you

-Jonathan