--- Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:If it is creating a /toolset/ to make recuperating data from a
quasi-XML (aka tag soup) then it is an interesting area of research. I can think of
two approaches:
- have a parametrisable XML grammar. By default it would really
parse XML, and barf with extreme prejudice on errors. However individual rules will be relaxable and modifiable to accept different, possibly slightly broken, input. This is imho the least desirable approach.
Why is this the least desirable approach?
To be clear, I don't think it would be a bad thing to have, as a tool. I think however that it is less optimal than the other solution as it would require people to parameterise it each time they want to address a new kind of bug, whereas the HTMLish approach should work out of the box.
Having a grammar that can be finely controlled so that it isn't too hard to implement XML parser behaviours (and I mean proper XML) mixing push, pull, trees, and whatnot built on it then that's a grand idea.
-- Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
