Re: Additional syntactic restrictions

[Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx>]

On Thursday, June 6, 2002, 5:20:54 PM, Gavin wrote:


GTN> On Thursday 06 June 2002 11:10 am, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> Well. "unlikely to be" is more accurate than "cannot", if some
>> programmer figures out that the special IETF-UTF8-only-XML parser is
>> re-entrant and tries to re-use it on the XML payload as well as the XML
>> protocol used to send the payload because "adding two parsers to the
>> product would be stupid".

GTN> This is assuming a design for an XML-based protocol that allows embedding 
GTN> arbitrary XML content,

No, its not assuming such a design. Its conceeding that some
as-yet-unspecified IETF protiocol that uses XML might be used to
transmit an XML payload. That doesn't seem like a stretch to me.

GTN> or embedding references to arbitrary XML content, in
GTN> an XML subset, and makes assumptions about how the protocol is exposed to the 
GTN> programmer

It makes no such assumptions. It says that it is possible.

GTN> (fiddling with both protocol bits and payload bits directly). I'm
GTN> not sure the assumptions are valid.

I am sure they are not universally valid. They are at least possible,
which is sufficient to disprove your assertion that XML content
interoperability "cannot" be affected by any XML subsetting done in
the protocol part.

GTN> The whole point of a protocol is to constrain conversations/behaviours such 
GTN> that effective communication can occur...

Yes, but that reads as something of a non-sequiteur wrt the rest of
your argument.


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@xxxxxx