• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• To: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@i...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:10:25 -0800

Miloslav Nic wrote:
> If there are some problems just state:
> 
> our device requires canonical XML:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xml-c14n-20001026

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.

-- 
Ronald Bourret
Programming, Writing, and Training
XML, Databases, and Schemas
http://www.rpbourret.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@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...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Next by Date: Forget yee not the DOCTYPE, was 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