[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]
>Perhaps the right answer is simply to say that a processor for the
>subset of XML defined by "foo" should be called a "foo processor" and
>not an XML processor.
Yes. FOO documents are XML documents You can process FOO documents
with generic XML processors or with specialist FOO processors.
Substitute FOO for HTML and XML for SGML and you have a well known
existing pattern:-)
I'd love to see an XML-RT. RT = Round Trip. A subset of XML 1.1 that can
be processed with a generic XML 1.1 processor but when processed
with an XML-RT processor is guaranteed to allow you to easily reproduce the
input UnicodeWithAngleBrackets as its output UnicodeWithAngleBrackets.
Earlier, Walter Perry used a master craftsman analogy. Is it not reasobable
to expect every master craftsman to be able to - at a minimum - put materials
through his hands without messing them up?
Sean
http://seanmcgrath.blogspot.com
|
