• To: tbray@t... (Tim Bray)
• Subject: Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:22:42 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: jcowan@r... (John Cowan), veillard@r..., elharo@m... (Elliotte Rusty Harold), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3DADB526.9030806@t...> from "Tim Bray" at Oct 16, 2002 11:51:18 AM

Tim Bray scripsit:

> Well yeah, except for the ICU implementation is several times the size 
> of your average XML processor, and its APIs are way harder to learn than 
> for example SAX.

I meant that it's the gold standard for *algorithms*, not necessarily
that you should use the library itself.

> Why doesn't 1.1 just say "Processors must validate at user option"? 
> I.e. this is behavior that can be turned off.  Then you know what's 
> going to happen.  -Tim

Because if that were the rule, every parser would have to support
normalization checking.  This way, it's a QOI issue whether a parser
provides support or not.

-- 
John Cowan       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        <jcowan@r...>
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

• References:
  • Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Questions about XPointer Framework
• Next by Date: Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
• Previous by thread: Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
• Next by thread: Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread