• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,"xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:49:17 -0800

At 10:31 AM 10/11/00 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

>And maybe if that takes off, we can have Canonical XML parsers which only
>read Canonical XML.

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • 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: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xslt
• 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