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

Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 webl

• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:18:48 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D103B24D6A@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D103B24D6A@R...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i

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/

• References:
  • RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: use cases: binary XML for scientifc computing
• 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