[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Rob Lugt <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:59:50 -0700
> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and if you think the draft spec
> is wrong then you should certainly raise your concerns with the OASIS Entity
> Resolution TC.
They've been CC'd on most of this traffic, and if they choose to
address feedback I'm sure they know there's some traffic that
didn't end up getting CC'd there (with more specific references
to support my points).
> I am taking a slightly different stance in that I think that
> they [the TC] should be entitled to use all the information items from the
> xml document they deem appropriate.
But in fact you're asking for information that's not part of the infoset.
There are no defined information item [properties] for this stuff, even
where it should be found if this were what XML is supposed to do.
> > If a feature is that all-fired important, then it's worth formally
>> revising the XML specification (and infoset).
> While I would have no problem with the Infoset being clarified, I don't
> believe it is necessary. In this case I think it is SAX that has
> interpreted the specification wrongly.
Well, since even the infoset does not include the information which
you're proposing be exposed, I think you're putting the shoe on the
wrong foot. I count two W3C specs (and SAX) that are consistent
with the interpretation I've presented. You're the one proposing a
change in basic XML infrastructure, so you (or maybe that TC) have
the onus to resolve this.