Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> I see the argument. Do you think that relying on something already
> accepted - like BEEP XML in RFC3080 is a solution? As far as I can see,
> RFC3080 is increasingly becoming implemented. So while not full XML, it
> may be a standard that works "as expected"?
I believe that RFC3080 specifies the use of actual XML, not any
simplified version. It does insist on XML 1.0, and allows dropping of
the <? ...> headers at the start (since you're not passing an
independent document but rather an XML fragment inside another protocol,
and that protocol tells you that you're getting XML there). But in 2 of
the 3 implementations I've seen the innards of, it's using off-the-shelf
XML parsers. (And the reason the third one didn't is we didn't want to
make it dependent on outside libraries, allowing porting to (say)
routers or hand-held PDAs or whatever).
However, the examples I've seen such as
<cookie MSGNO=123 ENCODING=USASCII />
are not valid XML tags, missing the quote marks around attribute values.
Rather than "simplified XML", consider "restricted XML", which is what I
think you're talking about wrt RFC3080. But this is a restriction on
allowable DTDs, not a simplification on the syntax.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA USA (PST)
The standard of success is not perfection.
The standard of success is the alternative.
