Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w...] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:19 PM > To: Dare Obasanjo > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: > XML 2004 weblog items?) > > > > > "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 was replying to Derick Denny-Brown, who mentioned specifically > > Duplicate attribute detection, > > character checking, namespace resolution/checking. > > (although I'm not sure what he m eans by namespace > resolution, since one isn't supposed to have to dereference > the namespace URI) I'm sure he means mapping namespace URIs to prefixes including the associated scoping rules and the like. > > Sounds like you are claiming that XML parsers (e.g. the > stuff that XML > > web service end points or RSS aggregators use to consume XML coming > > from arbitrary and sometimes malicious sources) should skip > > well-formedness & validity tests since they can trust the writers. > > That's not what I meant to claim -- you quoted me out of context. So detecting duplicate attributes and checking if characters are legal isn't well-formedness checking? I'm confused, how are you quoted out of context? 1. Derek points out at that some well-formedness checking is expensive 2. Liam responds that parsers can skip them and trust the generator of the XML 3. I point out that this is problematic on the Web where consumers of XML usually cannot trust producers of XML -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are ingenious. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|
