Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > At 4:52 PM -0400 7/19/02, Aleksander Slominski wrote: > > >hmm, citing: 'outright violations with XML 1.0, none of which the maintainers > >seem willing to fix.' - this is pretty strong statement! > > > >i am not aware of any XML 1.0 violations in XMLPULL API. > >the only thing that could possibly make XMLPULL API not > >100% compatible with XML 1.0 is when PROCESS DOCDECL feature > >(http://xmlpull.org/v1/doc/features.html#process-docdecl) > >is set to false and we did only to allow creation of limited XML > >parsers (mainly for J2ME). > > > > That's a very big one. A parser should not be allowed to turn off > processing of the internal DTD subset at all. And to make not > processing it the default?! That's just wrong.
i must disagree ... XML is used now in all possible places and that what was perfect for hand-writing XML documents does not necessarily is useful when XML is machine processed - in such situation DTD is not only unnecessary but adds extra weight to XML parser implementations (and size of implementation is very important factor for J2ME ...) moreover XML schemas are replacing DTD so in many situation support for DTD is no longer needed at all ... i think that XML 1.0 conformance is crucial for XML parser - with XMLPULL API the user code can request XML 1.0 validating or non validating parser and if parser is created it is guaranteed to be XML 1.0 compliant - short example: XmlPullParserFactory factory = XmlPullParserFactory.newInstance(); factory.setFeature(XmlPullParser.FEATURE_VALIDATION, true); // request validating parser //factory.setFeature(XmlPullParser.FEATURE_PROCESS_DOCDECL, true); //to request non-validating parser factory.setNamespaceAware(true); //request that created parser must support namespaces XmlPullParser xpp = factory.newPullParser(); if parser implementation supporting features required by user is not available it will not be created (and newPullParser() will throw exception to indicate it). we did not make PROCESS_DOCDECL to be true by default as we wanted to create minimal XML parsing API that can be gracefully scaled up to full validating XML parsing. unfortunately it seems that we may failed in trying to get this fundamental API design choice explained ... > Worse yet, according to http://www.xmlpull.org/impls.shtml neither of > the existing implementations even allows you to set that feature to > true. that means that current implementations are limited but has not much to do with API - i would treat differently API and implementations and would make clear that i am criticizing implementation and not API! i am also working on Xerces 2 XNI based implementation of XMLPULL API that should then should be a reference and complete implementation of XMLPULL V1 API. > I've also heard it claimed recently that the parsers aren't doing all > the name character checking they're supposed to, though I haven't > confirmed that one for myself. See > <http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200207/msg00502.html> in MPX1 i have currently support for proposed XML 1.1 character checking as it seems better reflecting current UNICODE usage patterns (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#sec2.3) i would like to ask that when making comments about XMLPULL API to be precise if it is API that has flaws (this is serious problem!) or particular implementation that needs fixing (that i think is minor problem). thanks, alek ps. as of my implementation MXP1 it certainly works good for tasks it was designed (for example SOAP parsing) but i am aware of its limitations and i both intent to remove them and in longer term to pass it through OASIS/W3C conformance tests. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
