• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: parser models
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:40:50 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <r01050300-1015-2047E276CF6D11D6B29D0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> I'm not sure that I accept that the difference between "editor" APIs and
> "processing" APIs is that clean-cut in practice, though there's
> certainly a cultural divide between developers who are creating markup
> by marking up information (which I think you're categorizing as
> "editor") and developers who expect information to come prepackaged in
> neat little boxes.

Well, there are definitely differences at the requirements level. 
People who build editors typically care about lexical fidelity; i.e. if 
I hand-write some XML with a CDATA section and the editor gets rid of it 
by escaping all the <'s and &'s, I'm going to get irritated, I probably 
had a good reason for the CDATA.

Most people, of course, who aren't writing editors couldn't care less 
whether a < was encoded as &lt; or &#60; or in a CDATA section.  -Tim

• References:
  • Re: parser models
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Web Services - what is the alternative? (was TAG on HLink)
• Next by Date: RE: Web Services - what is the alternative? (was TAG onHLink)
• Previous by thread: Re: parser models
• Next by thread: Re: parser models
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread