Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:36:37 +0000 (GMT)
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Michael.Kay@icl.com writes:
> > > > Perhaps a setOption(option, flag) interface would be more
> > > extensible.
> > >
> > > I could live with this, but only if the options were namespace
> > > qualified, i.e.
> > >
> > > parser.setOption("http://xml.org/sax/features/validation", true);
> > > parser.setOption("http://xml.org/sax/features/namespaces", false);
> > >
> > I'm all for fully qualified names, but I don't see why we should repeat the
> > error of using "http://" names for things that are not accessible via the
> > HTTP protocol. What's wrong with
> > "org.xml.sax.option.validation"?
> That's fine for Java, but since it's based on DNS anyway, why develop
> a general solution that uses a slightly different notation?
Yep. Why not just say that these properties are identified with URIs and
leave it at that? http: URLs could then happily co-exist with URNs,
uuid URLs etc etc without changing the basic architecture.
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax; Berners-Lee,
Fielding, Masinter, Internet Draft Standard August, 1998; RFC2396.
(available from http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt)
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)