geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: CDATA and GBean attributes
Date Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:54:30 GMT
On Feb 22, 2005, at 12:28 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> 	Is it possible to validate the "outer" content but not the "inner"
>> content?
> no, that is a very large part of my argument against naked xml.  
> Whatever xml technology we use, I don't want it poking around inside 
> my attribute contents.  AFAIK the only way to acheive this is with 

I would say, if you don't want your xml validated, then stick it in a 
CDATA.  My guess is that in the case Alan is looking at, he wants the 
inner xml validated because it is a geronimo security descriptor.

>>   I'm worried about the case where we validate our plan, and the
>> inner content includes, say, namespaces with HTTP references to 
>> schemas,
>> and we end up trying to validate the inner content, perhaps having 
>> trouble
>> due to slow network connections to wherever the schemas are stored, or
>> something like that.  I'd rather just treat all the "inner" data as an
>> unrecognizable blob, which is what CDATA provides.
>> 	Also, I'm not sure we should always fail if it's invalid -- what
>> if the PropertyEditor (or whatever's going to handle it) is quite
>> forgiving but it looks bad to us?
> For instance, suppose the attribute content is a jmx mlet tag -- looks 
> like xml but isn't (no closing tag stuff at the end)

That is a poor argument.  If it is not valid xml, then of course you 
can't have it naked.  Just like if you had text containing special 
characters.  But what about the case where you have have a schema and 
valid xml?

On another subject.... Aaron brings up an important point.  How do we 
extend our XML schema catalog, so users can provide additional schemas 
to the processor?  Can we have a schema directory that is scanned on 


View raw message