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

Re: Fast text output from SAX?

• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Fast text output from SAX?
• From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>
• Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:00:42 -0400
• Cc: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <p06010201bca56dada33a@[192.168.254.88]>
• References: <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC097DEA@S...> <p06010203bca46bfb4c07@[192.168.254.88]> <407ED381.6090301@l...> <p06010206bca4abb74554@[192.168.254.88]> <407F43E6.3000204@l...> <p06010201bca56dada33a@[192.168.254.88]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031030

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> ...
> However, most processors of binary formats such as Word do not start 
> with the assumption that they are reading an arbitrary stream of 
> bytes. They assume they're reading data in a known format and build 
> assumptions about the format into their code. When those assumptions 
> are violated, the program heads south in unanticipated and potentially 
> damaging and dangerous ways. This is why it really bothers me when 
> processors attempt to gain speed compared to traditional XML parsing 
> by skipping well-formedness checks. This applies to both many binary 
> parsers and some so-called minimal parsers that process traditional 
> XML without checking for well-formedness.

Binary doesn't imply there isn't any well-formedness checking, obviously.
Incremental, or lazy evaluation, well-formedness is useful and 
potentially protects applications just as well as full well-formedness 
with better efficiency.
Allowing the application the option of avoiding repetitive or unncessary 
well-formedness checking is a valid strategy.  Your argument that data 
that a 'program' receives must always be fully validated in any 
situation could just as easily be extended to libraries and modules 
receiving DOM references or similar.  What one system may do with 
libraries or software modules, another may do with plugins and another 
may do with n-tier processing steps.  Does the granularity of the 
implementation somehow necessarily change the fundamental likelihood of 
corruption?

sdw

-- 
swilliams@h... http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw@l... http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw

begin:vcard
fn:Stephen Williams
n:Williams;Stephen
email;internet:sdw@l...
tel;work:703-724-0118
tel;fax:703-995-0407
tel;pager:sdwpage@l...
tel;home:703-729-5405
tel;cell:703-371-9362
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Fast text output from SAX?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Fast text output from SAX?
    • From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
  • RE: Fast text output from SAX?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Fast text output from SAX?
    • From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>
  • Re: Fast text output from SAX?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Fast text output from SAX?
    • From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>
  • Re: Fast text output from SAX?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Xopus Explained (was: Re: xml editors)
• Next by Date: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
• Previous by thread: Re: Fast text output from SAX?
• Next by thread: Re: Fast text output from SAX?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread