• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:56:24 -0500

Rick JELLIFFE wrote:

> But I urge developers to boycott any XML parsers that do not attempt to
> provide full support for XML 1.0, in any general-purpose development.
> If you use them, *you* are creating interoperability problems, not the
> people who use XML 1.0 in their documents.  Perhaps the kxml people
> might put in a paragraph in their documentation warning against using
> their system in general-purpose applications too.

I think you are overlooking the following sentence from the documentation:

	[kXML] is intended for restricted environments
	like the PDAs or embedded systems.



-- 
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:
  • Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@i...>

• References:
  • Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
  • Re: Pull-based XML parsers?
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: Options in XML 1.0
• Next by Date: RE: xslt
• Previous by thread: Credit for Common XML (was Re: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by thread: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread