[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hmm... I have several problems with this article:
1) Not require end tags? I don't see how a generic parser could possibly
process XML that was missing end tags. The only reason that HTML browsers
can do it (sort of) is because they also have intimate understanding of the
semantics of HTML (e.g. can distinguish block-level presentation elements
from in-line presentation elements, etc). Maybe if the parser hinted at in
this article were designed for a very specific use of XML, I might
understand this statement. Otherwise, I think the statement is bunk.
2) I see no problem with having a parser that ignores portions of XML spec
if it will never encounter those portions, such as DTDs or PIs (CDATA in his
example). He claims this would cause interoperability issues. Where and
How? Admittedly, such parsers would have limited use since they are not
truly generic. However, I don't think that anyone would use such a parser
for generic processing in the first place. And all of the documents that
*can* be handled by such a parser are still legal XML documents. To imply
that "you're effectively using a proprietary format" because of this
practice is just plain wrong.
3) He appears to be using the bandwidth, size, and processing time issues as
a means to legitimize the rest of the article. We have all known these
issues exist. Eventually, they will be dealt with (likely with wider pipes
and faster hardware). But this has very little to do with the balkanization
of XML, which seems to be one of his main issues (or at least the one he
starts with).
I can't help feel that this was a clever sales pitch. Remind me not to take
a closer look...
---
Seairth Jacobs
seairth@seairth.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <AndrewWatt2000@aol.com>
To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: [xml-dev] Article: "The horror of XML". :)
>
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2896005,00.html
>
> It's almost as if this guy was eavesdropping on our recent discussions.
>
> But, what I want to know, is "Which of you guys are writing these alleged
XML
> parsers which don't require end tags?". :) Shame on you! :)
>
> Andrew Watt
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
|
