Xml parser validating vs non validating advantages harwood relative dating 1
Let's have a look at each together with some examples!
Quick Tip: Both the XPath and XQuery Match assertions make use of the Saxon XPath / XQuery processor which supports most of the latest standards in this area.
(Here, I'll call these "parsers" even though they're actually Web-based interfaces which sit on top of parsers.) Good ones are: Aside from the well-formedness-vs.-validity and user-interface differences, these syntax-checkers differ in smaller ways.
For example, both the Tobin and STG parsers can optionally be made namespace-aware if your application requires it.
Back in 1998, within a few months of the XML 1.0 Recommendation's release, one observer reported on XML-DEV that he'd found over 200 parsers (after hitting 200, he gave up counting).
In the grand tradition of Perlians throughout history, you will of course use an existing parser -- say, XML:: Parser -- rather than writing your own.
(In this case, you'll find that XML:: Parser is built on the same expat, written in C, that's at the heart of the Mozilla browser.) Or maybe you're using the Oracle 8 database management system to read in and emit XML from its relational tables -- why bother even looking at some parser other than the one that comes with Oracle, and risking potential incompatibilities?
) But maybe for one reason or another you really do need to select a standalone parser. And within the well-formedness category, you may need some additional but optional features which are required only of a validating parser.
Do you want the parser to supply an attribute's default value if the document author hasn't done so? In such cases, you can eliminate whole sub-categories of non-validating parsers from consideration.
Search for xml parser validating vs non validating advantages:
I suppose the two main approaches are DOM and SAX parsers.