• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:41:51 -0800

Oops. I haven't read the spec and just glanced at the list in the
previous email. Learning in public is so much fun...

-- Ron

John Cowan wrote:
> 
> Ronald Bourret wrote:
> 
> > I don't think you can do quite that -- canonical XML is a post-parse
> > form. For example, if you replace CDATA sections with their data, then
> > the document:
> >
> >    <A><[CDATA[ < ]]></A>
> >
> > becomes:
> >
> >    <A> < </A>
> >
> > which is not suitable for sending to somebody -- they'll get an error
> > parsing it.
> 
> Nope, Canonical XML is fully parsable XML: in this case it would be:
> 
>         <A> &amp; </A>
> 
> --
> There is / one art                   || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
> no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
> to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein

-- 
Ronald Bourret
Programming, Writing, and Training
XML, Databases, and Schemas
http://www.rpbourret.com

• References:
  • Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
  • Re: Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
  • Re: Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@i...>
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Next by Date: Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Next by thread: xslt
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread