• To: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:54:50 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <42038131.8080701@m...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0501280904130.20504-100000@s...> <200502032213.56841.david.lyon@c...> <4202A983.6030803@z...> <4202C65B.7000207@o...> <42038131.8080701@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421

> If there were to be an XML 2.0, one of the goals should be that any 
> off-the-shelf parser generator can produce a parser for it. It's 
> ridiculously hard to write a correct XML parser; it ought to be 
> ridiculously easy.

If the parser is how most users actually get to "touch" XML, then we're 
probably all better off that there are a limited number of parsers out 
there.

If every damn fool could write a C, C#, or Java compiler, then there'd 
probably be no hope of language portability.
	/r$
-- 
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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>

• References:
  • xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • 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