[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Kay wrote: > > By contrast the defining occurrences of the terms processor and application > in section 1 (to which hyperlinks point) are hopeless, since they don't > define the boundary between the XML processor and the application: they > don't tell me, for example, whether my SAXON library is part of the XML > processor or part of the application. Seconded. Tim Bray wrote: > That is not true at all. The processor and the application are cleanly > defined. The fuzzy spots are in the area of what exactly the processor > passes to the application. And what about software "between" the processor and the application, which is where most utility code belongs? Tim, you're reinforcing Michael's point about fuzziness! - Dave xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|

Cart



