- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:12:02 +0000
- To: public-xml-er@w3.org
On 21/02/2012 15:48, Shane McCarron wrote: > XML Parser ---> Tools that deal with well formed XML | > ^ V | XML-ER Parser --------- > > So in my world I would try to use a traditional (and therefore > speedy) XML parser. If that failed, failover to XML-ER It's not clear to me that parsing xml need be quicker than xml-er? Mainly it's about _not_ checking stuff that xml checks, so it could be faster couldn't it (certainly faster than parsing with both:-) Mostly (when processing files over which I have write access) I would expect to just use an xml parser (because if there are syntax errors I want the process to stop and whoever introduced the syntax error to be exposed to public humiliation) But if processing random documents in the wild, I might choose to parse with xml-er and be safe in the knowledge that I'll get something. I'm not that interested in whether it reports any parse errors in this scenario as I can't change the document so I just have to accept it as it is (a browser of course is pretty much always in this position). David ________________________________________________________________________ The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. ________________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 16:12:27 UTC