[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 09:45:33 -0400
At 08:43 PM 9/24/2001 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>It is a natural tendency to, when we find that our document type does not
>need certain features, to want to remove them from the information set
>or from what the parser recognises. I don't see anything wrong with
>a parser implementing only the markup recognition that a particular
>application needs, as long as it keeps the layering clear: that it rejects,
>say, attributes not because of an XML error but because of an early-caught
That's very, uh, SGML of you Rick.
It doesn't however, seem to fit very well with the ideas which animated XML
1.0 in the first place. I'd suggest that the notion of a generic parser
which can be used in any application, as well as the notion of generic
syntax which can be parsed by any of those generic parsers is an important
part of what defines "XML" as a set of practices and seems pretty tightly
built into the XML 1.0 specification.
Even the 'separatist' Simplified Markup Language movement seemed to
preserve the notion of generic parsers, albeit for an even simpler set of
markup tools than XML.
On the other hand, may it would make some people happy to declare SOAP an
SGML Protocol, and then that annoying "Simple" on the front of it could
O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.