Hmmm... it's not strictly an entry to the mainstream HaXml, but I have unit test code for my modified version of HaXml, which might be of some use: http://www.ninebynine.org/Software/HaskellUtils/HaXml-1.12/test/ http://www.ninebynine.org/Software/HaskellUtils/HaXml-1.12/test/TestXml.hs The test cases include some round-tripping, e.g. using doXmlParseFormat. #g -- At 08:48 28/10/04 -0400, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
Is there a good entry point into HaXml? I've now spent some time trying to understand it and feel like I've gotten nowhere.
The Haddock documentation enumerates what each function does, but I still don't know how to produce a valid XML document?
For example, this is obviously the wrong way to go:
simp2 = document $ Document (Prolog Nothing [] Nothing []) [] $ Elem "root" [("attr",AttValue [Left "v\"al"])] [CString False "<<<<<>>&&&"]
Because, it produces the obviously wrong:
<root attr="v"al"><<<<<>>&&&</root>
I assume/hope that the combinators properly encode/escape attribute values and CDATA, but can't figure out how to generate even the simple XML above.
And once I've done so, is there a way to put PIs in via the combinators or do I have to import Types and risk have unescaped stuff in my document?
-Alex-
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
"S. Alexander Jacobson" <alex@alexjacobson.com> writes:
I modified the Prolog type to be data Prolog = Prolog (Maybe XMLDecl) [Misc] (Maybe DocTypeDecl) [Misc] and then modified the Prolog parser
Thanks for spotting this bug and providing a fix. I also note that the XML spec allows "misc*" to follow the document top-level element:
document ::= prolog element Misc*
and this too is incorrect in HaXml. There may well be other occurrences of the same omission.
Given that this fix was so very easy and given that the parser was already spec consistent, I now have to assume that there was good reason for the Prolog to be spec inconsistent, but I don't know what it is...
I originally assumed that Misc's were unimportant and could be discarded, like comments are discarded by a compiler. I failed to notice that PI's should be passed through to the application.
Implementation question: Why is there so much replicated code in HaXML/Html (parse.hs and pretty.hs)
The HTML parser does some correction of mal-formed input, which is not otherwise permitted by the XML spec. Likewise, the HTML pretty-printer makes some wild and unjustified assumptions about the way that humans like to format their documents, whereas the XML pp is more strictly-conforming. Once XHTML becomes common, the HTML parser/pp will be obsolete.
Regards, Malcolm
______________________________________________________________ S. Alexander Jacobson tel:917-770-6565 http://alexjacobson.com _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact