[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rich Salz wrote:
>> If there were to be an XML 2.0, one of the goals should be that any
>> off-the-shelf parser generator can produce a parser for it. It's
>> ridiculously hard to write a correct XML parser; it ought to be
>> ridiculously easy.
>
>
> If the parser is how most users actually get to "touch" XML, then
> we're probably all better off that there are a limited number of
> parsers out there.
>
> If every damn fool could write a C, C#, or Java compiler, then there'd
> probably be no hope of language portability.
> /r$
while not "every damn fool" can write a c etc compiler, it's certainly
well within the capabilities of a comp science undergrad (and in fact
part of the course in many places - or similar). but a compiler is more
than a parser and here we're simply talking the difficulty of parsing
xml - let alone doing anything with it.
this is not to say that what's out there doesn't work well - mostly it
works very well. but if it was easier and more people did write accurate
parsers then i think that would be very good for xml.
that the difficulty in writing a parser is a problem i would have
thought is self evident from some of the questions on this list. and in
fact not only is the parser difficult to write, but in many cases the
xml itself is difficult!
some serious consideration about what we really do need is required....
it is in everyone's interest.
rick
begin:vcard
fn:Rick Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick
email;internet:rjm@zenucom.com
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
