From: Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date: 2002-06-13T03:02:33+09:00
Subject: Re: ANN: REXML 2.3.5 && 2.2.3

Dossy wrote:

> While I totally agree with Sean, I think Sean missed James's point.
> 
> I would enjoy an XML parser and XML validator that allowed me to parse
> an XML document that failed to validate so that I could try and figure

Hm.  Yes, there's definately been some miscommunication.  I never implied 
that REXML would force users to validate XML.  In fact, I know of no XML 
parser that has this requirement.  If you don't supply a schema, you don't 
get your document validated.

What I was saying was that I believe that REXML should have some inherant 
validation mechanism for people who need validation.

> "Sorry, your XML document failed to validate." but rather show things
> like "Node <zipcode> in the node <address> for <person name="Sean E.
> Russell"> was missing."

Well, that's validation, right?  How the errors are handled is a question of 
design philosophy.  If I can make the validator smart enough to continue in 
the case of an error, I certainly will.

>> Remember, .001% of a year is 8 hours... how much would you mind having
>> a day's pay taken out of your paycheck?
> 
> Ouch!  Stop that!  Who are you, the IRS?!  :-)

I wish.  Well, no -- I don't wish that I was the IRS -- they don't get to 
keep the money.

-- 
 |..  The Tick: "Spoon!"
<|>   Neo: "There is no spoon."
/|\             -- anonymous
/|    
 |