Re: XML data
 

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:38:47 +0300, Pavel Lepin wrote:
> Writing a standard-compliant XML parser is no easy task.

Pah! Writing a stanard-compliant XML parser is easy. Almost no one else
has, though, so writing one that interoperates correctly with anything
else is hard. (;

--
22. No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will
not consume any energy field bigger than my head.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord

Re: XML data
 

Peter H. Coffin <hellsop@ninehells.com> wrote in
<slrnfvmrba.set.hellsop@abyss.ninehells.com>:
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:38:47 +0300, Pavel Lepin wrote:
>> Writing a standard-compliant XML parser is no easy task.
>
> Pah! Writing a stanard-compliant XML parser is easy.
> Almost no one else has, though, so writing one that
> interoperates correctly with anything else is hard. (;

I do realise that this post comes with a severe dose of
tongue-in-cheekiness, but, seriously, I believe at least
major XML parsers have a very decent track record where it
comes to standard-compliance. I monitor ctx religiously and
I cannot remember any mentions of parser non-compliance in
the last few months.

Of course, one could always use robic0's notorious RXParse
for all the non-compliance and misery anybody might ever
want in their lives, but then again, one could always jump
off a cliff without a 'chute too, so there.

--
"...a Netscape engineer who shan't be named once passed a
pointer to JavaScript, stored it as a string and later
passed it back to C, killing 30..." --Blake Ross