[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: Derek Denny-Brown <derekdb@m...>
• Subject: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:50:54 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <075E1759251CCB49ABF05D8F742AFE2704298DE8@R...>
• References: <075E1759251CCB49ABF05D8F742AFE2704298DE8@R...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 01:42:28PM -0800, Derek Denny-Brown wrote:
> > From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w...]
[...]

>> 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.
> 
> The problem with that is that it now becomes possible to load invalid
> XML.
That's true.  You can make invalid documents with DOM interfaces, too,
but that in itself doesn't mean the DOM is a bad idea...  it's a
trade-off, that has to be balanced against usefulness.

[...]
> That doesn't mean that parsers can't provide options to turn
> off expensive checks, just that they should be enabled by default for a
> generic implementation.
Agreed.

>>> I have yet to hear of any proposed solution which successfully
>>> balances the different demands.
[...]
> > Neither am I, which is why W3C has a Working Group to investiate
> 
> And I totally concur with others, that spending the time to really do
> some serious requirements gathering is key, and am glad to see it
> happening.

OK, cool :-)

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: "Derek Denny-Brown" <derekdb@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• 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