[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com> wrote:
| Arjun Ray wrote,
|>| Even when there's no (or an evolving) DTD/schema?
|>
|> No schema? Sounds like tag soup, then. All bets are off.
|
| Right, so code generation isn't a complete solution.
Yes, the incomplete part is where the other end is willing to accept the
costs. See my rant following up to Elliotte :-)
| There is, after all, a role for generic XML processing.
As text? Perhaps in editing environments, but I don't know of any other
meaningful use case.
| Or consider things which amount to much the same thing as there being
| no DTD/schema from a codegen POV: processing documents with multiple
| schemas
Who said we can import only one library? ;-)
| (maybe an open-ended collection),
As in, where the GP can be counted on to have domain-specific knowledge of
that many vocabularies?
I smell tag soup.
| or processing document fragments.
As in, non-well-formed fragments to begin with? I'm not sure what that
has to do with generating output. In what way could it be useful to
produce fragments that are not well-formed?
|
