[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
elharo@metalab.unc.edu (Elliotte Rusty Harold) writes:
>In other words the raw data is not available, so it's impossible for
>anybody to independently verify these results. Perhaps more
>importantly, we can't tell whether the data set used to produce these
>results is similar to the sorts of XML data we're working with or
>not. We don't know whether these results would likely be reproducible
>in our own environments.
It makes me long for the old days, when Jon Bosak's religious texts and
Shakespeare plays were the common currency of XML testing, simple and
documentish though they were.
"How do you like my new DOM tool?"
"Well, it looks pretty cool until I load the Old Testament into it, and
then fire and brimstone come flying out of my computer."
"How do you like my new SAX parser?"
"It's fine except for some odd results when parsing Macbeth."
"What do you expect? That play is cursed, you know!"
Oh well.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
