david-b at pacbell.net
Tue Oct 19 21:39:37 BST 1999
David Megginson wrote:
> David Brownell <david-b at pacbell.net> writes:
> > > Ummmm...I need validation ! So, which one should it be ? TR2 or
> > > XML4J ? Performance is an issue here !
> > Correctness should be too -- see my XML.com review.
> True, but you need to divide the correctness question into two parts:
> a) the parser accepts all well-formed/valid documents
> b) the parser rejects all malformed/invalid documents
> A parser that fails either of these is non-conforming; that said, you
> probably care a lot more about (a) than (b) for light-weight clients.
Let's say it's application-dependent. If the light-weight client
cared enough to validate, presumably it cares a lot about (b) ...
else why bother to validate?
This is an issue I wish I'd highlighted in that review, though it
comes out pretty quickly when you look at the raw testing results.
Oh well, next time -- analysing that much data on a dozen parsers
was no small task!
Did anyone mention size? Size should be an issue too. All other
things being equal, smaller means fewer lines for bugs to nest in.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev