Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 01:42:28PM -0800, Derek Denny-Brown wrote:
> > From: Liam Quin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> One can do validation in the writer and then plausibly skip the sort
>> of checks you mention in a reader, and still be talking about XML,
>> even with today's textual interchange formats.
> The problem with that is that it now becomes possible to load invalid
That's true. You can make invalid documents with DOM interfaces, too,
but that in itself doesn't mean the DOM is a bad idea... it's a
trade-off, that has to be balanced against usefulness.
> That doesn't mean that parsers can't provide options to turn
> off expensive checks, just that they should be enabled by default for a
> generic implementation.
>>> I have yet to hear of any proposed solution which successfully
>>> balances the different demands.
> > Neither am I, which is why W3C has a Working Group to investiate
> And I totally concur with others, that spending the time to really do
> some serious requirements gathering is key, and am glad to see it
OK, cool :-)
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/