Re: xml_error_string

Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, David P. Schwartz wrote: > > > > > > > Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Matt McClanahan wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > > > > > > > > Does your XML follow spec? The following is legal: > > > > > > > > > > <FIRSTTAG> > > > > > <SECONDTAG /> > > > > > </FIRSTTAG> > > > > > > > > > > The following is not: > > > > > > > > > > <FIRSTTAG> > > > > > <SECONDTAG> > > > > > </FIRSTTAG> > > > > > > > > > > If your XML looks like the second example above, then: > > > > > > > > > > CONGRATULATIONS! > > > > > You have now discovered why I had to build my own pseudo-XML parser by > > > > > hand. > > > > > > > > But the second example is wrong. Why write a custom parser instead of > > > > just fixing the erroneous XML? > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > HINT: Most people write HTML like the second example. > > > > > > > HINT: Most people write Pascal, Ada, and FORTRAN differently, also. Are you > > modifying your non-XML parser to take this into account, too? > > > > I didn't need to interpret Pascal, Ada, FORTRAN, et al :) I just needed to > interpret some special HTML-like tags. > > -- > Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ignacio@openservices.net> but they're not XML any more than Pascal, Ada, and Fortran. :-p