RE: Proposal 2c (minimal parsing) to address the ambiguity issue

> From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) 
> 
> > From: Chimezie Ogbuji [mailto:ogbujic@ccf.org] 
> > [ . . . ]
> > So, GRDDL would be defining a specific, fine-grained 
> parsing mechanism
> > independent of the *inevitable* development of a general-purpose XML
> > Processing Model which answers the question (among others) of 
> > "What will the impact of a default processing model be on 
> > existing XML documents and processors,...?" --
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/xml-processing-model-wg-charter.html
> > #xml-scope
> 
> Yes, because that doesn't exist yet.  If we wish to instead 
> defer to that future definition of an XProc default 
> processing model, that is the explicit intent of the 
> compromise proposal, #3c:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jun/0333.html

CORRECTION: GRDDL would not be *defining* a specific, fine-grained
parsing mechanism.  Rather, it would be *referencing* a specific,
fine-grained parsing mechanism that is already defined in the XML
specification: the notion of a non-validating processor:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#proc-types

I should note also that the idea of restricting the XML subset is not
unprecendented either.  For security reasons, SOAP prohibits the use of
a DOCTYPE declaration.  


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 19:16:24 UTC