OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Principles of XML design

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

On May 6, 2005, at 3:45 PM, Chris Burdess wrote:
> XML *is* the syntax. The API is something else - DOM, for instance.

That's what I was saying.

> If people want to preserve the original stream of bytes, they can do 
> so by preserving the original stream of bytes. No XML processor is 
> required to report things like whitespace in tags, whitespace in the 
> prolog or following the root element closing tag, the UTF-16 byte 
> order mark, whether attributes are delimited by apostrophes or quotes, 
> whether ampersands are encoded as & or & or &. All of 
> these issues have been discussed to death in XML Canonicalization.

Same point...

> Not at all. The spec says the order of attributes is not significant. 
> Whether one processor or another chooses to believe that it is 
> significant is irrelevant. Building an expectation of such behaviour 
> will simply leave your users confused and unhappy when they start 
> using another, conformant XML processor without that behaviour and 
> their application is broken.

If you define what a conformant XML processor *is*, I might agree with 
you. If I have a processor that understand the grammar of well-formed 
XML, but emits a boolean value (parsed or not), is that a conformant 

The point is that the processing is domain-specific, and hence, so are 
the processors... different requirements force different notions of 


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS