- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:32:35 -0700
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- 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>
Interesting. I have always (without asking) considered the word choice of "processor" to be intentionally chosen to NOT imply "parser". That is, it *processes* XML ... which may or may not be "parsing" Or else "they" would have used "parser" Isnt "XSLT" considered a "processor" even though it is not a "parser" ? Maybe that is why there is no requirement for "processors" to do things like report elements. Maybe it would be good to break from tradition and make the words explicitly different so nincompoops like myself can tell them apart. "parser" - A program which exposes the MicroXML document as an API corresponding to the Abstract Data Model "processor" - A program which processes data in a MicroXML document for some result (not enumerated by the spec), but implies the result is created according to (conformance with) the MicroXML Data Model. As for Fortran Vs C ... you totally lost me but thats fine. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lee Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation dlee@marklogic.com Phone: +1 812-482-5224 Cell: +1 812-630-7622 www.marklogic.com -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:13 PM To: David Lee Cc: James Clark; stephengreenubl@gmail.com; Maik Stührenberg; public-microxml@w3.org Subject: Re: data model David Lee scripsit: > Note I am distinguishing between "parser" and "processor" I suggest > there are valid and conformance roles for both. And they are quite > different. Historically these terms have always meant the same thing in the SGML/XML world. But if you want to distinguish them, fine; the abstract data model and MicroXML conformance pertain only to parsers. > Current wc(1) probably isn't uf8 aware so wouldn't count. The GNU, BSD, and Solaris versions definitely are, provided you set the locale correctly. > Why is a program that produces the output I want being considered > conformant absurd ? It's absurd to suppose that a Fortran compiler conforms to C. The fact that you want to compile Fortran has nothing to do with that judgement. Similarly, programs can process MicroXML without needing to be conformant parsers. -- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement. cowan@ccil.org --Bruce Perens, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan some years ago
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 17:33:11 UTC