• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:21:25 -0500

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• 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...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Next by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• 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