• To: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:48:27 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4202A983.6030803@z...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0501280904130.20504-100000@s...> <200502032213.56841.david.lyon@c...> <4202A983.6030803@z...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217

Rick Marshall wrote:
 > syntactically, xml uses opening symbols of <, <!, <?, </ and <![. as
 > these are not white space delimited it is therefore not lr-1 for
 > parsing......

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.

I also agree with whoever wrote that DTDs, validation and macro 
expansion should be pulled out of the base specification entirely. Hey, 
here's an idea: what you see is what you get.

Bob Foster

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• 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...>

• 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