Xml Messaging

[Rick Sanderson]

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Define a 'domain' language and you can validate the contents; use a
> 'metadata' language and you can only validate the structure of that
> language. The contents could be a right mess and still get through.

I don't see much of a difference.  If a Domain language is used, would
the parser still not be just validating the structure of the message?
The *actual* content needs to be "domain validated" either way.


> Of
> course you could then build a validating layer on top of the
'metadata'
> language, which is what RDF tends to do.

I've looked at RDF, but I must admit I still don't quite get it.  Do
you know of any *succinct* definitions/examples?


> If the validating you need to
> do is far more elaborate than can be provided by a DOM then you lose
> nothing by using a 'metadata' language, since you are going to have
to
> do a lot of post-parser processing anyway. Otherwise, I'd go with a
> 'domain' language.

If you mean by "validating...far more elaborate than...DOM" that
server side checking of the contents is required, then yes, most
certainly.  The server will ensure that values extracted from messages
are reasonable in its own object model.

Another message I just posted raises other concerns which makes it
difficult to determine which way to go.


Kind regards,

Rick Sanderson
ricks at fourbit.com






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 (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)