Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:03:47 -0500, Richard Salz wrote:
>> How do I tell whether it's safe to use my uXML parser instead of my
>> (heavier) XML 1.0 + Namespace in XML + XML:Base + XML:ID + whatever
>> parser?
>
> Does that have to be identified in the document, as opposed to out of
> band? Such as application configuration, fallback on failure, HTTP header
> :), etc?
Is it to be used in applications that don't provide context? File
storage comes rather emphatically to mind.
I had a long, entirely unproductive discussion with a former colleague
about the XML declaration (specifically the encoding pseudo-attribute,
in that case) versus "context," where context included things like HTTP
headers (or MIME headers, which are different, although we kept
ratholing on the distinction). Context is otherwise ill-defined, at
best. Sure, if you have an application protocol, it's likely that
you'll have a slot to say "document type". Not all document processing
happens over the network (ahem). If you want to define a
network-delivered document type (only), sure. If not, then no,
requiring a network protocol context is inadequate.
Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that
have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
-- Edsger Dijkstra
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
