Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Eric van der Vlist <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 18:20:01 +0000
> Sure, SAX1 and SAX2 are both working, but, like everything else, can't
> they be improved ?
Do improvements have to involve _changes_ to those standards?
My bias would be to layer all such changes.
> > Perhaps you're really wanting to see new layers get standardized? :-)
> That's one of my points, yes.
So then, one of my points is that such layers should either build on
the existing ones, or be designed with the same degree of attention
to XML 1.0 (and other "standards") reflected in SAX/SAX2.
> I know I will probably be called an heretic, but exposing this as an
> interface would allow to parse "not badly formed HTML" including the
> mixture exported by MS Office as HTML files.
"This" meaning a lexical/tokenization layer? Sure, go ahead and define
one. The topic comes up regularly on this list, but nobody's quite been
motivated enough to develop one. Yet.