[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SAX LexicalHandler::comment issue
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Rob Lugt <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:52:03 -0700
> I didn't mean to suggest that this issue alone deserves a new version of
> SAX - I agree the benefit is too small. Rather, when sufficient pressure
> for change occurs, this issue should be considered as part of any new
I'm not sure the cost/benefit tradeoff would change then.
What I'd hunt for is _compatible_ changes, with costs so
low that the benefits can dominate the equation.
> Comments are sometimes used to temporarily 'remove' large sections of a
Too bad <!-- ... --> doesn't nest well. I'd prefer #if 0/#endif for
such roles. Too bad neither Java nor XML work that way.
(Though it can be nice to hack C for a change ... :)
> I don't think you will ever be able to discourage this sort of
> activity. Indeed it is this sort of activity that creates potentially very
> large comments which may cause SAX processors a problem.
To the extent that it's a performance issue, another solution is
to offer a feature flag that lets apps say "don't report comments"
even if there's a lexical handler installed. There's a precedent
for reporting PE boundaries (feature flag exists).