[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On May 7, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
>
>> 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 processor?
>
> That's a very good question. In practice, I find it more useful to
> talk about a conformant SAX processor, DOM processor, etc.
That's actually the crux of my argument: it is of more practical value
to talk about conformance at this level because this is where
differences will/could arise. Again, depending on the application
domain, and how they treat the data, applications will have different
data requirements. Entities... most processing requires little or no
knowledge of entity boundaries, but there are many cases where the
knowledge is not just necessary, but vital. Who decides if they're
important? How about CDATA boundaries? How about PI's? Ultimately it is
the processor that decides.
> Does this same SGML spec place any other requirements on SGML and by
> extension XML processors? In particular does it mandate anything that
> an SGML processor is expected to return to client applications? Do any
> of the SGML gurus on the list happen to know that?
Not really... as people noted before, most of those requirements were
add-ons.
|
