• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:00:57 -0500

At 07:49 AM 11/10/00 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>Wow... Canonical XML is pretty easy to generate, but I'd think
>that enforcing all those constraints would be a lot of work,
>i.e. probably more than parsing ordinary XML. -Tim

Enforcing which constraints?

It seems like reading Canonical XML just requires a namespace-aware parser
for UTF-8 documents, with no need to implement DTD support.

Am I missing something drastic?  I can see where creating canonical
documents from regular XML might be difficult, but I don't see much
difficulty in reading them.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• References:
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@i...>
  • 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...>
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

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