[uf-discuss] xdmp profiles not enough for parsing?
Dr. Ernie Prabhakar
drernie at opendarwin.org
Wed Nov 16 09:21:55 PST 2005
On Nov 16, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> Ok, I'll put it yet another way.
> The specific addition that Phil was asking for was for which
> properties went
> inside which other properties.
> While it may seem this makes writing a generic parser easier for a
> instance, it actually makes the XMDP less reusable.
Okay, now *that* is an argument I can accept. What I hear you saying
is that Phil's parser should *not* be making those assumptions. Is
that your point?
If so, perhaps what we really need is not so much a refinement of
XMDP, but a list of the *practical* questions parser writers are
asking, and clarification of what the "right" answers to those
questions are. Right?
> When it comes down to it, the most useful information for a parser/
> is just to know what are the properties and what are the values.
> what XMDP provides. Everything else is incremental on top of that,
> and often
> gets in the way when people use such features as nesting
> requirements etc.
> to *over*-specify.
I'll buy that as a starting hypothesis, but I'd love to see data to
either confirm/refute that -- in the context of actual
implementations, of course.
-- Ernie P.
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. <drernie at opendarwin.org>
Ex-Physicist, Marketing Weenie, and Dilettante Hacker
Probe-Hacker blog: http://www.opendarwin.org/~drernie/
More information about the microformats-discuss