Parser differences

[John E. Simpson]

I've been struck by some notable differences among parsers. They all pretty
much do "core XML" the same way (or at least to the same effect), but
differ in the ways they handle (even accept/reject) some of the fringe
portions of the spec, such as notations. These differences will probably
blur over time; still....

Just curious: is there any effort underway somehow to tag a document
indicating which parser(s) the document's developer used to validate it or
check it for well-formedness? I'm thinking of something like a metadata
attribute on the order of parse-with="aelfred" parse-with-version="1.0" --
a way to signal a SAX-aware application program that if the indicated
parser is available, use it before defaulting to some other? 

I know that Jumbo, for one, permits the user to select a parser. It seems
that embedding an identification of the preferred parser in the document
instance would make it less likely that the user would "choose wrong," though.

(Yes, it would also invite abuse of the "This document best viewed with X"
sort.)

John E. Simpson          | It's no disgrace t'be poor,
simpson at polaris.net      | but it might as well be.
                         |            -- "Kin" Hubbard

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)