[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: xml-dev <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:20:46 -0500
At 09:00 AM 1/7/00 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
>Basically, the difference in pseudo code is this:
[pseudo-code stuff]
>In other words, there's not a very significant difference between the
>two. The main problem is that the spec is just so much harder to read
>and understand that it had to be.
Yes, but is SAX2 going to continue that confusion, or is it going to
clarify it?
Basically, there are three choices.
1) Ignore problem - let chaos continue, and force apps and developers to
deal with pseudo-code stuff above.
2) Make a choice - SAX2 defines a namespaces best practice, makes itself
simpler than the spec. You seem to lean toward 'attributes with no prefix
inherit their element prefix'.
3) Provide an option and a default - SAX2 makes a choice, but lets
applications opt for the other choice without requiring developers to
understand namespaces enough to implement that pseudocode.
I'd push _hard_ for 2 or 3. SAX2 has to make one of these 3 choices. Which?
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
