package similar to XML::Simple
Uche Ogbuji
uche at ogbuji.net
Wed Feb 11 01:44:10 EST 2004
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Wed Feb 11 01:44:10 EST 2004
- Previous message (by thread): An XML parser is an XML parser. Period.
- Next message (by thread): package similar to XML::Simple
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
"Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote in message news:<c0bc8v$ibu$01$1 at news.t-online.com>... > Peter Hansen wrote: > > Hmm... so it's your opinion that *all* XML parsers must handle *all* > > aspects of XML? If not, I think you should back off on the criticism > > of PyRXP as being "not an XML parser" and simply point out that it > > doesn't handle all aspects of XML because it is intended to provide > > a very fast/heavily optimized approach to parsing only certain kinds > > of XML. > > I am not Uche, but I think that all XML parsers should conform to the > XML recommendation (and treat deviations from the XML recommendation > as bugs). > > This is not the same as handling all aspects of XML, since the XML > recommendation makes certain aspects optional. Processing character > references is not one of them (but e.g. validation is). > > > It's a valid choice to do so, though of course if PyRXP is > > promoted as a "full" XML solution that might be inaccurate. > > Packages may help processing only selected XML documents, and they > may also support documents which are not XML. However, in neither > case, they should call themselves "XML parsers". "XML-like parsers" > or "XML subset parsers" might be more appriate. I wouldn't argue with calling PyRXP an "XML-like parser". Because until very recently I thought that PyRXP was an XML parser, I was extremely taken aback when I ran afoul of PyRXP's brazen character non-conformance. As an example of the danger in this non-conformance, PyRXP refused to parse the very first well-formed XML document I gave it. And I'm (mostly) a native English speaker. True XML parsers strive for interoperability for a reason. Not doing so pretty much negates the value of XML. I was even more taken aback to read that the PyRXP developers refused to make the simple fix needed for conformance. I think it is essential to point out that a tool that refuses XML conformance cannot go about calling itself an XML parser. --Uche http://uche.ogbuji.net
- Previous message (by thread): An XML parser is an XML parser. Period.
- Next message (by thread): package similar to XML::Simple
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list