- 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