W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-er@w3.org > February 2012

RE: Draft - Fixup or Full XML Parser

From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:16:48 -0800
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-xml-er@w3.org" <public-xml-er@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EB42045A1F00224E93B82E949EC6675E16ADAEE74A@EXCHG-BE.marklogic.com>
First off Anne, great work at a draft ! Definitely gives a concrete target to throw things at :)

Second I was travelling yesterday so only got to read not respond.
I'd like to step back a BIG step backwards.   I wasn’t at Prague so wasn’t involved in all the off-list conversations so maybe I missed something.  But I'd like to know if this spec/project is absolutely intended to be a  full fledged "XML Parser" ...  That is, is it assumed that this "Parser" will be used "In Place Of" an XML parser in the same use cases otherwise.
OR ...as I had naively presumed, is this spec a set of rules to "fixup" an input stream such that its output is WF XML (and possibly other fixups) which then could be used by an existing parser.      I think this makes a huge difference on how to spec this.   
If it is the first case then any XML ER parser MUST ALSO be a full fledged XML parser and all that entails.  
Otherwise it may be a lot simplier.  Certianly an implementation could combine both roles into one implementation so if we decided to just spec the "fixup" part doesn’t preclude an implementation from bundling that in (as an option to) their XML parser.    But if we don’t start out making XML ER an "XML Parser" then we don’t have to pepper the specs with "Oh by way, an implementation MUST do everything else an XML parser does ..." and enumerate every one of those.  One (of probably hundreds) of examples is the treatment of external entities.
If we spec XML ER as a full XML parser then an XML ER implementation MUST import and cleanup external entities.  If we spec it as a set of "fixup" rules then it might be possible to just say "pass through well-formed external entity declarations".  Or possibly clean up the external entity *declarations* without having to resolve them.  We might then go on to say something about how an ER XML parser would treat external entities if used in the role of parsing external entities - if so used.     Similar with say DTD's ...   

My personal opinion is that the XML ER should be speced as the fixup parser only and not presume that it is a full XML parser.  I think this will save us a lot of work, and provide more value.
Comments ?  Objections ? Am I passed left field ?




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
dlee@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 650-287-2531
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
www.marklogic.com

This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are confidential. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 10:01 AM
To: public-xml-er@w3.org
Subject: Draft

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:09:25 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
wrote:
> My draft (I will get a dvcs.w3.org repository to put it in next week)

Got one this morning:

   http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xml-er/raw-file/tip/Overview.html



-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/


Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 12:56:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 February 2012 12:56:21 GMT