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 17:26:52 -0800
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AcTQ+mNJCOymc7y5QOeDAj+FWdZtYAAAGfIQ
- 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 5:19 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?)
> > "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."
> I was replying to Derick Denny-Brown, who mentioned specifically
> > Duplicate attribute detection,
> > character checking, namespace resolution/checking.
> (although I'm not sure what he m eans by namespace
> resolution, since one isn't supposed to have to dereference
> the namespace URI)
I'm sure he means mapping namespace URIs to prefixes including the
associated scoping rules and the like.
> > 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.
> That's not what I meant to claim -- you quoted me out of context.
So detecting duplicate attributes and checking if characters are legal
isn't well-formedness checking? I'm confused, how are you quoted out of
1. Derek points out at that some well-formedness checking is expensive
2. Liam responds that parsers can skip them and trust the generator of
3. I point out that this is problematic on the Web where consumers of
XML usually cannot trust producers of XML
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