Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion <email@example.com> wrote:
>--- Evan Lenz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Indeed. The bare minimum requirements for a
>> non-validating XML parser
>> are unambiguous and hardly onerous. I'm tired of
>> people making gross
>> generalizations and using them as excuses for
>> nonconformance, as if the
>> complexity of the XML rec approached that of WXS.
>So why do you think they are bothering to implement
>only a subset if full compliance is "hardly onerous?"
Makes you wonder doesn't it ;-)
The footprint requirements just don't appear allow it. There are more productions to process the DTD than the XML document, and that's before you have to deal with what you find there.
As always, we'd be happen to be proved wrong. Given a way to be fully compliant, within the limitations of the devices, we would use it. The EG spent quite some time looking for such a solution...
>It would be real nice to hear from someone on the
>Expert Group on this matter, hint, hint, if you're
>lurking out there. Don't worry, the humiliation from
>being abused on xml-dev only stings for a little while
Public review is an interesting process. We are asking for feedback and we'll take what we are given. It would be nice to receive it in the spirit in which it was requested. :-)