• To: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• Subject: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004weblog items?)
• From: Oleg Tkachenko <oleg@t...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:52:09 +0200
• Cc: Derek Denny-Brown <derekdb@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20041122213401.GI23371@w...>
• Organization: Multiconn Technologies
• References: <075E1759251CCB49ABF05D8F742AFE2704298D39@R...> <20041122213401.GI23371@w...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910

Liam Quin wrote:

> One can do validation in the writer and then plausibly skip the sort of
> checks you mention in a reader, and still be talking about XML, even
> with today's textual interchange formats.

I believe that would be a disaster from security's "all input is evil" 
point of view.

-- 
Oleg Tkachenko
http://blog.tkachenko.com
Multiconn Technologies, Israel

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>

• References:
  • RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: "Derek Denny-Brown" <derekdb@m...>
  • Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by Date: RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by thread: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread