[uf-discuss] xdmp profiles not enough for parsing?

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi Tantek,

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  
> specific
> 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/ 
> validator
> is just to know what are the properties and what are the values.   
> That's
> 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/