David Lichteblau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * What does the "char-sets" column mean? It says "UTF-8 w/o Unicode" for > cxml; I can't make sense of that.
Me neither. :) But that is how it is reported in the cxml page. Other parsers make cursory notes about character sets it supports as well. I'd be happy to update the column to make it more sane if someone can shed some light on what it really means... > * I find the term "DOM" confusing as it is being used here. I know > that CL-XML documentation uses it to refer to "a document object model", > not "the (W3C) Document Object Model", but at least it explains that > clearly. Note that CXML is the only implementation to actually > support W3C DOM. I agree, I made an initial assumption that when the library talked about DOM, that they were in essence talking about W3C DOM. But it appears that may not be the case. I'll try to add what kind of DOM they're talking about with possibly footnotes to each type to describe it further down the article. > * Somehow I'd like a column "Makes an effort to conform to the > standards". AFAIK only CL-XML and CXML qualify for a "yes" there. I'm not exactly sure how to quantify "making an effort to conform to the standards". It appears that XML syntax is a particular standard that all the XML parsing libraries conform to, and the rest of the "techniques" of parsing vary widely. If the XML parser does not do validation, or provide the W3C DOM API, does that mean it is not making an effort to conform to the standards? > * Perhaps the XML column could more clearly be named "implementation type" > or something like that? How about "parsing techniques"? > Just my biased 2c, And much appreciated! Thanks for your feedback! -Peter _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
