Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 webl
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 02:07:42PM -0800, Dare Obasanjo wrote: > So what does the following statement mean then? > > "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) > 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. Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format