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