[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch

• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>, XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• From: Don Bate <donbate@i...>
• Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 11:32:40 -0600
• In-reply-to: <3E57AEFB.20501@t...>
• References: <3E57AEFB.20501@t...>

Just for my edification - I thought the term XML was specifically 
claimed by W3C as a generic term and therefore was _NOT_ specifically 
defined or controlled by the W3C. Am I missing something or 
misunderstanding the implications of "generic term"?

Regards,
Don Bate

At 9:10 AM -0800 2/22/03, Tim Bray wrote:
>Text of a feedback note I just sent to the community-feedback 
>address, cc Jon Ellis, the Sun guy who posted here:
>=============================================
>I understand the proposed XML parsing facility in J2ME accepts not 
>XML but a nonstandard subset which does not allow for the DOCTYPE 
>declaration.  It's OK to define a custom language for your own 
>purposes, but it's not OK at all to use the term "XML" in describing 
>it; this term is very precisely defined and is legally protected by 
>the World Wide Web Consortium; anyone who offers software with XML 
>in the name which is deliberately non-conformant to the 
>specification is putting themselves in a very shaky position both 
>legally and technically.   I am not speaking for the W3C but if Java 
>continues in this misguided direction I will pro-actively start 
>taking measures to protect the integrity of the term "XML" via the 
>W3C and public advocacy.
>
>On a technical front, and speaking as the author of the first-ever 
>XML Parser in the Java language (non-validating), which had a 
>bytecode footprint of less than 50k, I found that the code footprint 
>caused by parsing the DTD was negligable.  Now, external entity 
>processing is expensive, but there is no requirement to do that. 
>There is no requirement to fetch/process the external subset. 
>Processing the internal subset does create an opening to the 
>"billion laughs" DOS attack, but it would be perfectly reasonable to 
>implement self-defense against that with a simple limit on the size 
>of the internal entity stack, which would cost about one line of 
>code.
>
>On the larger front, XML has succeeded quite remarkably in providing 
>interoperability to a degree not observed in other data interchange 
>facilities.  There are indeed many programmers who read the XML spec 
>or one of the 30 shelf-feet of books now on sale explaining it, and 
>bash out software, and use MSIE or expat or something to 
>sanity-check it, and send it out into the world.  If J2ME advertises 
>a nonstandard subset as "XML", this is a recipe for an 
>interoperability disaster.
>
>Tim Bray
>  - co-editor, XML 1.0
>  - co-editor, Namespaces in XML
>  - member, W3C Technical Advisory Group
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Don Bate               | Specializing in Consulting and Mentoring in
Bate Consulting, Inc   | Object-Oriented Technologies,
                        | Software Architecture, and Software Process
(972) 618-0208 voice
(972) 618-0216 fax
donbate@i...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by Date: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Previous by thread: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by thread: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread