[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:nicolas.lehuen@ubicco.com]
<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/
|
