Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: email@example.com
- To: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:53:18 -0600
David Brownell wrote:
> There aren't that many classes in SAX 1.0, and they can be used
> as-is without "refactoring" anything at all. And, importantly,
> without sacrificing compatibility.
> Or am I missing something in what you're suggesting?
Consider the case of an XML parser implementing org.xml.sax.Parser.
Should a DOM parser have methods to register stream based handlers?
Yet, besides the handler registration, DOM parsers would benefit
from a standard programmatic way of initiating a parse, resolving
entities, and handling errors.
And the factoring would not have to sacrifice compatibility. I'm
not completely caught up on the SAX2 discussion but I seem to
recall talk about new interfaces/packages. I thought that if
that work is going to be done, we could refactor the general SAX
interfaces and classes at the same time.
Andy Clark * IBM, JTC - Silicon Valley * email@example.com
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)