Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:45:35 -0700
Ken MacLeod wrote:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n
> The number of XML questions I've seen answered with "here's how to do
> that with PYX" using standard Unix CLI tools (grep, sed, awk, sh,
> etc.) leads me to believe that there is, in fact, great benefit in
> using the ESIS format directly for many tasks. Canonical XML wouldn't
> have that benefit because it still requires character based parsing,
> whereas ESIS fits in nicely with Unix's line mode tools.
You are right. I thought that Canonical XML was more line-oriented than
it is. I still claim that we could improve upon pyx by making it a
line-oriented *xml subset*. Then you could pipe through both
XML-understanding and XML-stupid tools. Several of James Clark's tools
already produce that kind of thing.
A couple of years ago when I asked him about improvements to his ESIS
output he said that xml subsets were where he was planning to go (none
of his future tools supported either ESIS nor a formally defined XML
Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus
The calculus and the rich body of mathematical analysis to which it
gave rise made modern science possible, but it was the algorithm that
made the modern world possible.
- The Advent of the Algorithm (pending), by David Berlinski