Re: Draft - Fixup or Full XML Parser

It wouldn't. It would leave my existing and working toolchain alone, augmenting it with a fixup tool for when things are broken. 
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:

I can't see how having this pre-verification step would make the
XML-ER parser simpler ?

Mohamed

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €