Re: [xml-dev] MicroXML

[Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com>]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:03:47 -0500, Richard Salz wrote:
>> How do I tell whether it's safe to use my uXML parser instead of my 
>> (heavier) XML 1.0 + Namespace in XML + XML:Base + XML:ID + whatever 
>> parser?
> 
> Does that have to be identified in the document, as opposed to out of 
> band?  Such as application configuration, fallback on failure, HTTP header 
> :), etc?

Is it to be used in applications that don't provide context?  File 
storage comes rather emphatically to mind.

I had a long, entirely unproductive discussion with a former colleague 
about the XML declaration (specifically the encoding pseudo-attribute, 
in that case) versus "context," where context included things like HTTP 
headers (or MIME headers, which are different, although we kept 
ratholing on the distinction).  Context is otherwise ill-defined, at 
best.  Sure, if you have an application protocol, it's likely that 
you'll have a slot to say "document type".  Not all document processing 
happens over the network (ahem).  If you want to define a 
network-delivered document type (only), sure.  If not, then no, 
requiring a network protocol context is inadequate.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that 
have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are 
mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
                -- Edsger Dijkstra