Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal

[Rob Lugt <roblugt@elcel.com>]

David Brownel wrote:

> By the way, having skimmed the 12-June-2001 draft of that OASIS
> proposal, I don't see where it said that it needs relative URIs as inputs.

The [draft] specification refers to system identifiers from the xml
document.  SAX 2.0 is manipulating these sytem identifiers before passing
them to the Entity Resolver.  This is the problem.

>
> Let me turn it around:  If the XML spec says something works a particular
> way, who wins by encouraging tools to work in some non-conformant way?
> Surely not the XML community.
>

I absolutely agree with this statement, but from where I'm standing it is
the current version of SAX that is acting in a non-conformant way.  James
Clark pointed out [1] that the proposal (with his modifications) moves SAX
more into line with the XML Infoset specification [2].  This has to be a
good thing as it helps to ensure that SAX will be capabale of being used to
implement the next generation of XML specifications (including entity
resolution ;-).

>
> I've never once had a problem using the SAX EntityResolver in that role,
> but then again I was working within the constraints of the XML 1.0 spec.
>

Well, you must have been working to a narrower set of requirements.  The
OASIS entity resolution TC are creating a specification that will satisfy a
diverse group of users.

Regards
Rob Lugt
ElCel Technology

[1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200106/msg00349.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.entity.unparsed