• From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@w...>
• To: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:18:38 +0100

On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 03:00:27PM +0000, Rob Lugt wrote:
> David Lacerte wrote:
> > Hi!  I was wondering at what category of grammar the xml's belongs.  Does
> it have the properties of a LALR(1) grammar, which is the most probable?  I
> need that information in order to do a parser.  Thanks!!
[...]
> However, if you are considering using standard parsing tools, I think some
> of the biggest problems you will have are:-
> 1) Determining what is a token.  The XML productions go too close to the
> metal to be considered tokens in the normal sense
> 2) Entity replacement - especially parameter entities
> 3) Conditional Sections

  Do not forget proper encoding support ! Can be handled as a conversion
layer before tokenization, but the complexity of this operation should
not be forgotten.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel.Veillard@w... | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  | libxml Gnome XML toolkit
Tel : +33 476 615 257  | 655, avenue de l'Europe | http://xmlsoft.org/
Fax : +33 476 615 207  | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Rpmfind search site
 http://www.w3.org/People/all#veillard%40w3.org  | http://rpmfind.net/

• References:
  • Re: XML Grammar kind
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>

• Prev by Date: [Zvon announcement] XSL FO Reference
• Next by Date: RE: RDF? TM? (was Re: Didier's lab report)
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Grammar kind
• Next by thread: Real XML Site
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread