Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 11:51 PM +0900 7/13/01, Joel Rees wrote: >How do you propose to do this without burdening parsers with a huge wall >table? > This doesn't require any tables or divisions that aren't required already. A parser that wants to handle XML 1.0 documents (and I certainly hope we aren't suggesting eliminating XML 1.0 documents) needs to know the difference between a 1.0 character and a Blueberry character. A Blueberry parser has to be able to read a document that does not declare itself to be a Blueberry document and report that the document is malformed because the element names are in Cherokee. A smarter parser would suggest that the fix is to add a Blueberry declaration (whatever that looks like), but it at least needs to be able to make the diagnosis. >And why? Is the Blueberry proposal liable to make a directional branch in >the development of XML that you think is undesirable, or perhaps too early? > Well yes, but that wasn't my point in *this* thread. :-) Blueberry documents will cause problems when passed to existing pre-Blueberry software. To minimize this, we need to limit Blueberry to those cases only where someone actually needs (Oops, there's that word again :-) ) Blueberry, as opposed to cases where they just think its cool or somehow better to be using the latest and greatest. -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) | | http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
