[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: 05 Mar 2000 12:21:47 -0600
David Megginson <david@megginson.com> writes:
> David Brownell writes:
>
> > I don't know about configuration file, but it does seem
> > appropriate to say that every SAX parser should come with
> > basic documentation including:
> >
> > - SAX2 features/modes supported
> > - default settings for those modes
> > - SAX2 properties supported
> >
> > Of course I think conformance statements for XML would
> > be appropriate too.
>
> I agree with all of this, but I'm not sure how to enforce it. Would
> community pressure be enough?
This sounds like a small twist on Sean McGrath's XML Features Manifest
(XFM) idea.
If we come up with a list of characterists, it'd be easy to codify
that in an XML. Then it doesn't matter if that fragment of XML comes
_with_ the package (parser) or supplied by users to a web page
dedicated to them (e.g. no enforcement is necessary).
-- Ken
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
