xml-dev - Re: ANN: SAX 2.0 extension proposals.

[Stefan Haustein <haustein@kimo.cs.uni-dortmund.de>]

David Megginson wrote:
> Stefan Haustein writes:
>  > I agree that Miles' proposal could be put into a separate (sax
>  > independent) package, in principle, but without putting it into
>  > SAX2 core, parser vendors would not be forced to supply the parser
>  > vendor file, so it would be useless...
> I don't want to force them to provide that, though -- SAX is already
> hard enough for implementors to get right without adding another
> hurdle.  If there's as big a demand as you and Miles believe, then
> market pressure will convince implementors to include the
> configuration file anyway, and if not, then we've saved implementors
> some unnecessary work.

Would adding a recommendation to the SAX documentation
"please include a configuration file" be an acceptable 
solution? 

Nobody would be forced to include a conf. file, but
at least the format would be clear and I could 
probably use Miles' extensions (or at least a 
simplified version based on instantiation)...
 
> p.s. I prefer to talk about implementors rather than vendors, since
>      not all parsers are maintained by commercial entities.

That was just a problem of stupid translation 
from my "internal" language (German).

best regards,

Stefan


-- 
Stefan Haustein
University of Dortmund
Computer Science VIII
www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************