[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I guess the question I'm asking is that if the document looks like XML
(has
> XML syntax and is well-formed)
If the document has XML syntax and is well-formed, it is always
possible to process it with almost any existing XML tools, such
as XSLT, SAX, DOM, e t.c.
> but the data model is specified in such a way
> that no off-the-shelf tools can with certainty handle it (along the lines
> of, say, the spec declaring attribute order to be significant, or elements
> {X,Y,Z} being allowed to appear anywhere, any number of times, in any
order,
> including within other ordered element content models, or namespaces not
> being used merely to disambiguate, but as a mechanism to insert private
> elements and attributes anywhere within a document, etc.),
What do you mean by 'off-the-shelf' tools ?
Also, it appears to me that you place a roundtripping of XML
infoset as the only possible use of XML. This is not the only
possible usecase.
> then is it really
> any more useful than any other arbitrary document syntax? Why even use
XML?
To leverage XML tools.
> Oh, I know-- marketing. Duh.
I think it is just a pragmatic desire to leverage existing
XML tools, not re-inventing the wheel one more time
every time.
I'd like to understand what particular problem do you see
with well-formed XML documents that are "not XML"
What makes a well-formed XML document "not XML" ?
I don't get it.
Rgds.Paul.
|
