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

RE: XPath 2.0 Best Practice Issue: Graceful Degradation

• From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:22:11 -0500

Hi Folks,

Here is a summary of last week's discussion:

http://www.xfront.com/xpath20/best-practice/graceful-degradation/index.
html


Last week David Carlisle raised an excellent point: "it helps to keep
[data validity] separate from your program logic."

In the summary I wrestled with this:

(a) Keeping data validation and program logic separate, versus

(b) XPath is shipped around and executed in different, unanticipated
environments where it may not be safe to assume that its environment
provides schema-validation, and so program logic must address
validation.

I am interested to see what you think: has the summary struck the right
balance between validation and program logic?

/Roger

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XPath 2.0 Best Practice Issue: Graceful Degradation
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • RE: XPath 2.0 Best Practice Issue: Graceful Degradation
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• References:
  • XPath 2.0 Best Practice Issue: Graceful Degradation
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: XPath 2.0 Best Practice Issue: Graceful Degradation
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • RE: XPath 2.0 Best Practice Issue: Graceful Degradation
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: XPath 2.0 Best Practice Issue: Graceful Degradation
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: XPath 2.0 Best Practice Issue: Graceful Degradation
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: XPath 2.0 Best Practice Issue: Graceful Degradation
    • From: John Snelson <john.snelson@o...>