• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Mike.Champion@S..., xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:37:11 -0800

At 04:18 PM 12/11/00 -0500, Mike.Champion@S... wrote

First of all Mike, could you please reset your mailer so your
messages don't show up in tiny, unreadable, blue sans-serif?  Thanks.
>> XML *syntax* compliance (especially for well-formend parsers)  > is relatively easy to achieve, and should be the basis upon  > which we can build *reliable* applications. If you can't  > trust the foundations, you're toast. 
>
>>I'm having trouble reconciling this assertion with David Brownell's results (see ><http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/05/10/conformance/conformance.html>http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/05/10/conformance/conformance.html ).  Even the largest vendors of >XML tools distribute parsers that are not fully conformant.  
In my experience, when we feed real-world XML coming over the wire 
through various SAX & DOM parsers, we have yet to encounter a case
where we get different information about the same document out of 
different parsers.  (We have encountered some bugs in encoding 
handling and some performance anomalies, but I think that's a 
different space).

I'm wondering if our experience is unusual. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
    • From: Daniel Barclay <Daniel.Barclay@d...>
  • RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
    • From: Don Park <donpark@d...>

• References:
  • RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
    • From: Mike.Champion@S...

• Prev by Date: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Next by Date: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Previous by thread: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Next by thread: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread