[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [JDEV] Well-formed XML.

	A bit of a dated reply, but I just imported all of the archives into my
mail box..  Anyhow..

	The problem with most of the XML parsers currently out there is that they
are for parsing an XML DOCUMENT, and NOT a XML Protocol packet..  This is
the reason why it wants well formed XML to be contained in a single root
element, becouse that's how it is supposed to work in a document centric
view of XML data.

	The way this should be approached is to only send ONE <j></j> element to
the parser at a time.  In your solution below, you STILL have the problem of
a single root element if you attempt to send more then one <jabber></jabber>
packet to the engine.  You are simply adding an additional level of elements
that is not needed..

	In response to your last comment, everything wrapped in <j></j> for the
exact reason you pointed out..  To provide a base level root element, being
j.  ;-P

--
Thomas Charron
United Parcel Service
Northeast Region
IE Software Developer
"Moving at the speed of a T3 Trunk Line!"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-jdev@jabber.org [mailto:owner-jdev@jabber.org]On Behalf Of
> Jason Diamond
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 3:24 PM
> To: jdev@jabber.org
> Subject: [JDEV] Well-formed XML.
>
>
> Hi, I have another protocol related suggestion. I've been experimenting
> with a Java client and have been using several of the major XML parsers
> to test it out. Apparently, a well-formed XML document needs to have a
> single root element. Much like the root <html><!-- everything else goes
> here --></html> element in HTML. All of the parsers I've tried so far,
> stopped parsing at the second <j> element. There are several ugly
> workarounds but I think it would be much more conducive to our goals if
> we could take any off the shelf XML parser and not have to modify it in
> order to write a Jabber client. So, I propose that both the server and
> client wrap all their messages in a root <jabber></jabber> element.
> Attributes could be used to specify the client and protocol much like
> the current <j type='connection'> element. Maybe something like this:
>
> <jabber agent='Jabzilla v1.0' protocol='19990121'>
>   <j type='login'><user>foo</user><pass>bar</pass></j>
>   <!-- etc. -->
> </jabber>
>
> The end </jabber> element could be used to indicate that the server or
> client is getting ready to close the connection. Comments? I'm in the
> process of downloading Cygwin32 so that I can make the necessary changes
> to the server to test it out.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why are all the messages between client and
> server wrapped in a <j type='foo'> element? Why not <login> or
> <message>? If we used element names rather than attribute types to
> distinguish the purpose of a message, we could create a DTD specifying
> what elements are allowed to be nested in others. For example, <user>
> and <pass> would only be allowed in a <login> element. I'm not proposing
> that we validate the XML as it comes in from the server, but it could be
> used as a specification. Much like EBNF is for more traditional
> protocols. And who knows, maybe while implementing and debugging our
> clients we could have it validate the XML as an aid to determine a
> source of errors.
>
> Bye,
> Jason.
>
>