Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Liam Quin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: [xml-dev] XML 2004 weblog items?)
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:07:42 -0800
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AcTQ3zyrbteQDMqpTW6vpNpMy90+JQAADB+A
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: [xml-dev] XML 2004 weblog items?)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liam Quin [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 2:04 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re:
> [xml-dev] XML 2004 weblog items?)
> 'phew, I'm glad I didn't suggest that :-)
So what does the following statement mean then?
"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."
Sounds like you are claiming that XML parsers (e.g. the stuff that XML
web service end points or RSS aggregators use to consume XML coming from
arbitrary and sometimes malicious sources) should skip well-formedness &
validity tests since they can trust the writers.
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are ingenious.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no