Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Peter Murray-Rust <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:14:09
At 09:42 17/12/97 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
>Peter Murray-Rust writes:
>Any project should have measurable failure criteria. Here are my
>The Simple XML Event-Based API initiative will have failed if either
>of the following is true:
>1) By Monday 12 January 1998, at least three Java parser writers have
> not agreed to support a specific set of common interfaces.
>2) By Monday 12 January 1998, at least three Java applet or
> application authors have not agreed to use the same set of common
> interfaces that the parser writers have agreed to support.
Yes - I think this is very appropriate. I will commit at this stage to do
what I can for JUMBO. Given that the API will look fairly like what I'm
used to from David and Tim that seems fine (the Xapi-J was a level above me).
So barring the possibility that I there are bits I may not *understand* it
shouldn't be too horrendous. I would be *very grateful* for a working
harness like Driver.java (Lark) or the equiv in lfred. It's then trivial to
make sure I've got it right.
So - one more parser write, and two more applications. The applications
needn't be browsers - they could be transformers, search engines, whatever.
And they needn't exercise the whole API (just as JUMBO won't). It simple
has to show that the approach is understandable by at least three humans
not connected with the other three humans. [Actually robots can volunteer
if they want, as well].
>In other words, we need at least one other parser writer on board
>besides Tim and me (a duopoly is almost as bad as a monopoly), and at
>least two other applet/application writers besides Peter. If we don't
>have that agreement, and a working beta interface, by 12 January, I
>won't want to spend any more of my time on this issue (I have other
>projects that I'd like to pursue).
>Another interesting question is the DOM. I have not taken the time
>yet to see if this interface provides enough information to construct
>the most basic DOM nodes -- if it does (or at least, can), then we
>could have a single DOM module maintained separately (using the common
>event interface) instead of requiring each parser writer to create a
>separate one. A separate DOM module with its own maintainer would be
>much more likely to stay up to date and robust.
>All the best,
>David Megginson email@example.com
>Microstar Software Ltd. firstname.lastname@example.org
>xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
>Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
>To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
>To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
>List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)
Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic
VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)
- From: Douglas Wikström <email@example.com>