Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: email@example.com
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:26:00 -0600
>> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> > I don't sense consensus yet on whether client-side validation is
>> > desirable; it clearly is in some cases and clearly adds little in
>> > cases.
>> Wouldn't it depend on what the client is?
>Yes. Which is why I wrote that I don't sense concensus on this - there
>are arguments both for and against; for rewuireing validation, for never
>requiring it, etc.
In our second generation parsers, we take the approach that what 'parser'
you use indicates what you want to do. For us, a 'parser' is just a little
glue that wires together some set of the underlying functionality to some
output API. We have validating SAX and DOM parsers, and non-validating SAX
and DOM parsers. If you use a non-validating parser, then it will not
validate, period. If you use a validating parser it will validate (and
require a DTD.)
That scheme seems pretty sane to me. Validation should be something that is
requested, not magically invoked according to the content of the DTD, IMHO.
I would hate for any other rule to come into play, because it would lessen
the flexibility available to the user (whether human or machine.)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)