- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:37:20 -0400
- To: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Cc: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, "stephengreenubl@gmail.com" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>, Maik Stührenberg <maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
David Lee scripsit:
> Imagine this simple practical case. A Micro XML processor that counts
> the number of tags. It need not be built upon a fully featured parser.
> Yet it should be considered "conformant" if it produces the right
> answer for any MicroXML document.
I don't agree that it's a conformant parser; it only conforms to its
self-defined goal. What about a "MicroXML processor" that counts the
number of characters in a MicroXML document? If that's conformant,
you'd have to say wc(1) is conformant to MicroXML, which is absurd.
> (please don't fall into the DOM trap of defining an actual interface !)
I think defining an interface is a Good Thing. Sockets haven't suffered
from having a defined interface. It's just a separate job from defining
an abstract data model.
--
John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Sir, I quite agree with you, but what are we two against so many?
--George Bernard Shaw,
to a man booing at the opening of _Arms and the Man_
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 16:37:43 UTC