Fw: SAX 2.0 enhancement proposal

[Rob Lugt <roblugt@elcel.com>]

Forwarded to xml-dev...

I'm not subscribed to xml-dev, so I can't post there,
but I give permission to forward this message there if
anyone cares to do so.

About half of the OASIS Entity Resolution Technical Committee
(ERTC) are active members of the W3C XML Core Working Group,
the group with the responsibility for maintaining and
interpreting the XML 1.0 Recommendation as well as developing
the Infoset spec.

Whereas reasonable people may disagree on the interpretation
of something in almost any written work, David's viewpoint
of what is in compliance with the XML Recommendation is not
shared by a fair number of the W3C XML Core Working Group
members.  As far as the Infoset, the XML Core WG also wrote
that specification (the original editor of that spec being one
of the key members of the OASIS Entity Resolution Technical
Committee), and most of us don't believe that anything therein
is contrary to the positions taken in the XML Catalog draft.

paul

> At 07:37 2001 06 15 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> >I still feel like you're ignoring my basic point:  if that draft expects
to interpret
> >those identifiers in conflict with clear language in the XML
specification, the
> >bug is in that draft, not SAX.  From false assumptions, anything can
follow.
>
>
> >I don't think it's a good thing for an XML API to address users who want
> >nonconformance with the XML specification.  That's the sort of process
> >which undermines standards.  If a feature is that all-fired important,
then
> >it's worth formally revising the XML specification (and infoset).
> >
> >- Dave
>
>
>