If you restrict the order, it's not XML, please don't call it XML if it's not really, it will just confuse people. If you want to use XML I suggest using an existing XML parsing library rather than re-inventing the wheel.
Dave At 10:22 AM 6/6/2002 +0600, Victor Porton wrote: >Well, you haven't answered the question, whether it is a need for Sword to >consider equivalent XML equivalently or it can use only a subset of XML (e.g. >with restricted attrs order). > > > The order of attributes is not significant in XML, so your examples should > > be equivalent. Regardless things shouldn't ever crash even if it did get > > unacceptable data, it should display or log or return an error message and > > go on or quit, which ever makes sense for the situation. If you want to > > parse XML, best is to use an XML parser library... such as expat or xerxes > > or some other one. > > > > At 05:05 AM 6/6/2002 +0600, Victor Porton wrote: > > >Somebody said that XML format of modules is preferable. > > > > > >First a question arises: does this imply that two equivalent XML fragments > > >(e.g <a x="1" y="2"/> and <a y="2" x="1"/> are equivalent XML despite > these > > >have different text representation) should be parsed by Sword > > >equivalently? Is > > >variant when <a x="1" y="2"/> parses well, but on <a y="2" x="1"/> Sword > > >crashes acceptable (with obligation to use in modules only the first > > >arguments > > >order)? > > >-- > > >Victor Porton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > >-- >Victor Porton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
