My argument is about both. We're debating whether or not to add a mandatory constraint to the protocol that, in my view, provides no tangible benefit while increasing cost. I have no problem if some implementations choose to reject requests they're not capable of storing with 100% semantic fidelity, but it should not be mandatory to do so, especially when HTTP places no such constraint.
- James Kyle Marvin wrote: >[snip] > The work still happened to recognize what you wanted to store and what > you did not, it just happened in ParserFilter. Something saw a > QName it didn't want and dropped it. > > Your argument is really about the ability/right of servers to silently > ignore, not the work/effort involved. It's fine to argue on that > basis, but let's not obsfucate it as a performance argument. The work > to segment the input data into the bits you are interested in and the > bits you are not is still happening, its just happening up front. >
