Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:nicolas.lehuen@u...] <snip/> > I still don't understand why validation is not performed in a > SAX filter > rather than in parsers. Parsers like Xerces have dramatically > grown in size > and have performance problem due to the fact that validation > is built in in > the parser. > > To me, parsing and validating are two different activities. > They may have > been integrated for performance reasons of the > parsing+validation pipeline, > but I'd still like to have a clean, high performance parsing > pipeline in > which I could plugin any kind of validators (eg. Sun MSV). I agree wholeheartedly. I also think it is unfortunate that the tasks of validating and augmenting an infoset get lumped together by XML 1.0 and XML Schema. I like the classifications in the XML Pipeline note [1]. The distinction between "inspection" processes and "augmenting" processes strikes me as useful. I can see why there are practical reasons why one may want an implementation to do both at the same time, but I can also see why it may be useful to distinguish the two and not have to rely upon validation to get a "correct" view of the infoset of a document (or to be able to validate without having to worry about side effects). [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-pipeline/
|
