[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- To: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
- Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:57:37 -0800
Ken MacLeod wrote:
>
> 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?
I think so, but having an "expected format" would probably help.
> This sounds like a small twist on Sean McGrath's XML Features Manifest
> (XFM) idea.
Got a URL?
> 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).
Actually I don't care if it's codified in XML or not, so long as it's
also available in mortal-readable form. I really do see this as basic
parser documentation, and part of the maintainer-to-user commitment.
- Dave
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
