- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:48:15 -0600
- To: public-xml-er@w3.org
On 2/21/2012 9:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:16:48 +0100, David Lee
> <David.Lee@marklogic.com> wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
> How would you envision this "fixup" to work? What you describe sounds
> like 1. determine whether it needs fixup; 2. fixup; 3. parse. The
> alternate approach is just parse, which seems somewhat more
> straightforward.
>
I envision this (in one type of environment) as an element of a toolchain:
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 where it would fix-up
the input and what comes out would be tool-chain ready.
Maybe I am now guilty of presupposing a solution...
--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 15:48:46 UTC