- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:16:44 +0100
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
John Cowan wrote: > Henri Sivonen scripsit: > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Mar/0060.html >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XALANJ-2419 > > Yes, some libraries have bugs. But that's better than the bugs that > essentially every single program written without such a library will have: > much easier to fix. > Why would one want to make the availability of one's site critically dependent on not hitting those bugs given the availability of an alternative? Why would one want to sink resources into an architecture that required XML-centric design (always use a tree model, never do string concatenation, religiously remove all XML-disallowed characters from any input, anywhere, deal with the speed hit implied by these things) given an alternative option? Especially given that the time spent making ones site XML-compliant is time that isn't spent adding features that end users care about. It seems to me that draconian error handling has a very poor opportunity cost. On the other hand consistent parsing with rules understandable by mortals is nice. I don't think anyone would want a language with foster parenting or the adoption agency if it wasn't really needed for compatibility. Doing XML:the good bits ("XML5") seems like a no-brainer if it can give you the best of both approaches.
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 15:16:35 UTC