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

RE: Java Technology and XML : API benchmark

• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Java Technology and XML : API benchmark
• From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:20:25 -0800

> From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:nicolas.lehuen@u...]

<snip/>

> I still don't understand why validation is not performed in a 
> SAX filter
> rather than in parsers. Parsers like Xerces have dramatically 
> grown in size
> and have performance problem due to the fact that validation 
> is built in in
> the parser. 
> 
> To me, parsing and validating are two different activities. 
> They may have
> been integrated for performance reasons of the 
> parsing+validation pipeline,
> but I'd still like to have a clean, high performance parsing 
> pipeline in
> which I could plugin any kind of validators (eg. Sun MSV).

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think it is unfortunate that the tasks of
validating and augmenting an infoset get lumped together by XML 1.0 and XML
Schema. I like the classifications in the XML Pipeline note [1]. The
distinction between "inspection" processes and "augmenting" processes
strikes me as useful. I can see why there are practical reasons why one may
want an implementation to do both at the same time, but I can also see why
it may be useful to distinguish the two and not have to rely upon validation
to get a "correct" view of the infoset of a document (or to be able to
validate without having to worry about side effects).

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-pipeline/

• Prev by Date: RE: problem with noNamespaceSchemaLocation.....urgent !!!
• Next by Date: Pipelines : inside or outside the parser ? (was RE: Java Technology and XML : API benchmark)
• Previous by thread: RE: Java Technology and XML : API benchmark
• Next by thread: 3 XML Base questions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread