[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Walter,
>> It's interesting how close you are to Walter Perry's position here
>> --that nothing matters aside from the output of your process, and
>> that the input can be anything at all; it's up to the processor to
>> work out what.
>
> I believe that I have been consistently a stickler for
> well-formedness in XML: my first exchange with Peter Murray-Rust on
> this list emphasized the importance I attach to well-formedness,
> though in that case by contrast with those who believed that
> something more than simple well-formedness was required for XML to
> be truly useful. That said, well-formedness checking is in the
> domain of the parser, and a parser of itself falls far short of the
> XML processor described in the Recommendation. Patrick Durusau can
> speak for himself, and may well disagree with my understanding, but
> in my opinion the JITTs processor operates downstream of XML parsing
> and of necessity has other inputs, and input assumptions, than the
> XML which a parser by itself processes. I build processors
> downstream from XML parsing in just this way and, yes, you are
> correct that for the inputs for which they are designed--and which
> they are specifically expert in handling--such processors must enjoy
> the autonomous authority to proceed on their own rules. It is only
> that whatever portion of their input is XML is subject to XML
> parsing, including the expected well-formedness checks, upon every
> use.
I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to imply that your processes weren't using
well-formed XML, I was just trying to draw the parallel between your
acceptance of any *vocabulary* to create a known vocabulary as a
result, and JITTs' acceptance of any *syntax* to create a known syntax
(XML) as a result.
I'm just trying to persuade Patrick not to use a syntax that's
similar-enough-to-XML-to-be-confusing as the input to his processes in
the examples that he uses.
Cheers,
Jeni
---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
|
