• To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:48:39 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>, Bob Foster <bob@o...>, "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <42042508.3030009@m...>

> prestigious one) graduate students did not write a C compiler as part of
> their compiler course, much less undergraduates. They wrote a compiler
> for  a stripped down language that looked like C but wasn't because all
> the difficult bits had been pulled out. I don't want to see a lot of de
> facto XML subsets in every other program. Making a parser simple enough
> that a lot of people *think* they can write one quickly is asking for
> trouble.

My point exactly.


-- 
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview      http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html

• References:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread