ASPN ActiveState Programmer Network
ActiveState
/ Home / Perl / PHP / Python / Tcl / XSLT /
/ Safari / My ASPN /
Cookbooks | Documentation | Mailing Lists | Modules | News Feeds | Products | User Groups


Recent Messages
List Archives
About the List
List Leaders
Subscription Options

View Subscriptions
Help

View by Topic
ActiveState
.NET Framework
Open Source
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl
Web Services
XML & XSLT

View by Category
Database
General
SOAP
System Administration
Tools
User Interfaces
Web Programming
XML Programming


MyASPN >> Mail Archive >> xml-dev
xml-dev
Re: [xml-dev] The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
by David Carlisle other posts by this author
Oct 16 2002 2:48PM messages near this date
Re: [xml-dev] The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published | Re: [xml-dev] The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
From: John Cowan <jcowan@[...].com> 


   Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:

   >  Optional checks worry me. This just adds another point of confusion 
   >  like the one in XML 1.0 with non-deterministic content models, where 
   >  some parsers accept a document and some reject it. If the check is 
   >  optional, it should further be guaranteed to be a non-fatal error, 
   >  even when the check is made.

   That is why we say that parsers which do normalization checking must report
   to the application, and emphasize that lack of normalization is not a WF
   error.

But that requirement to report doesn't ensure that the application won't
stop does it? "report" doesn't seem to be specifically defined anywhere.


Also the two phrases

 The option to not verify should be chosen only when the input text is
 certified, as defined by [Charmod]. 


 The option to ignore those denormalizations should not be chosen by
 applications when reliability or security are critical. 

Seem out of place in a normative part of the spec, they are guidelines
aimed at the end user of the application that's using the xml parser.
Such guidelines should not be in the normative prose. As is, what happens
if the user opts not to verify when the input next is _not_ certified?
Is the behaviour undefined? Partly the problem is the (5) uses of the word
"should" which appear to be being used in some colloquial sense rather
than a strict requirement in the sense of the relevant rfc's definition
of SHOULD.

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> 
Thread:
John Cowan
John Cowan
Rick Jelliffe
John Cowan
Rick Jelliffe
Rick Jelliffe
Rick Jelliffe
Rick Jelliffe
Richard Tobin
Tim Bray
Richard Tobin
Tim Bray
Richard Tobin
John Cowan
G. Ken Holman
John Cowan
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Amelia A Lewis
John Cowan
Richard Tobin
John Cowan
Amelia A Lewis
John Cowan
John Cowan
Rick Jelliffe
Karl Waclawek
Karl Waclawek
Karl Waclawek
Elliotte Rusty Harold
John Cowan
Jeni Tennison
John Cowan
Karl Waclawek
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Daniel Veillard
Elliotte Rusty Harold
John Cowan
David Carlisle
John Cowan
David Megginson
Tim Bray
John Cowan
Daniel Veillard
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Elliotte Rusty Harold

Privacy Policy | Email Opt-out | Feedback | Syndication
© ActiveState Software Inc. All rights reserved